> than to do: > > CREATE TYPE some_arbitrary_name AS (f1 int, f2 text); > CREATE FUNCTION foo() RETURNS SETOF some_arbitrary_name; > > But I admit it is only a "nice-to-have", not a "need-to-have". > > How do others feel? Do we want to be able to implicitly create a > composite type during function creation? Or is it unneeded bloat? > > I prefer the former, but don't have a strong argument against the latter.
The former is super sweet, but does require some extra catalog entries for every procedure - but that's the DBA's problem. They can always use the latter syntax. The format syntax is cool and easy and it Should Just Work for newbies... Chris ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])