On 5/24/06,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.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
