Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > Out of interest - why do SRFs need to have a table or view defined that > matches their return type? Why can't you just create the type for the > function and set it up as a dependency? >
The only current way to create a composite type (and hence have it for the function to reference) is to define a table or view. We have discussed the need for a stand-alone composite type, but I think Tom favors doing that as part of a larger project, namely changing the association of pg_attributes to pg_type instead of pg_class (if I understand/remember it correctly). Joe ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
