Teodor Sigaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> May I eliminate SETOF from Typename and leave it 
> only for RETURNS?

Why do you want to?

I think the reason it's in Typename is the assumption that in future
we would try to extend the applicability of SETOF, not restrict it.
For instance I can see reasons for wanting SETOF on a function's input
parameter (to pass it a whole table or select result in one call).

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to