Re: Improving ALTER TYPE support

From: "John Jawed" <johnjawed(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Improving ALTER TYPE support
Date: 2006-05-24 19:04:30
Message-ID: a9eb35850605241204w4d6be2a0ra485cb584bfd992d@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I guess I don't understand what one has to do with the other (SRF's
returning records and OUT parameters). I always thought they were exclusive,
could you elaborate?

On 5/24/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> >> I've been working on a function which returns a setof a composite type.
> >> Everytime I've changed the structure of the returning setof, I've had
> to
> >> change the type accordingly, which current means doing a drop type ...
> >> cascade down to the function. We should allow one of the following:
>
> > Why not go all the way and work out a way to define an SRF return type
> as a
> > part of the function? e.g.
>
> Um, isn't that exactly what the OUT parameter support already gives you,
> ie, an anonymous record type?
>
> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2006-05-24 19:05:59 Re: Why is CVS server so slow?
Previous Message korry 2006-05-24 19:03:46 Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid