2008/6/10 Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 06:42 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> internally is table functions implemenation identical with SRF. > > It's not the internals that I'm concerned about. > >> Semantically is far - user's doesn't specify return type (what is from >> PostgreSQL), but specifies return table, what is more natural. What >> more - for users is transparent chaotic joice betwen "SETOF RECORD" >> for multicolumns sets and "SETOF type". > > Well, I'd just like to see some thought about how this *entire* feature > ought to work, rather than just adding new knobs and syntax variants > incrementally and seemingly at random. Just because it happens to be in > the standard isn't really a compelling reason to make an overly-complex > part of the system even more complicated, IMHO... > > -Neil >
This feature has only little sense with plpgsql, but together with sql's functions allows more readable code. And is significant for SQL/PSM. what is more logical and consistent? create or replace function fx(a integer, out b integer, out c integer) returns setof record as $$ select a, b from foo where a = $1; $$ language sql; or create or replace function fx(a integer) returns table(b integer, c integer) as $$ select a, b from foo where a = $1; $$ language sql; Pavel > > -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
