* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: > 2013/6/10 Hannu Krosing <ha...@2ndquadrant.com>: > > If there was then what were the arguments against doing this ?
I don't recall offhand, but it would be *extremely* useful to have.
> > Or was this just that it was not thought important at that time ?
For my part, without looking at what needs to happen for it, big +1
for adding it.
> I don't like this idea. I know so DO is +/- function, but it is too
> restrict. I hope so we will have a procedures with possibility unbound
> queries.
I don't see that as an argument against adding support for what can be
done today within our existing structures and API.
> and you don't need to define output structure - what is much more user
> friendly.
Sure, some day this would be a nice addition. There's no need to hold
up adding support for a defined table return type for DO waiting for
this other feature to happen though.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
