On 05/03/2014 09:55 PM, Peter Krauss wrote:
If yes, the /record/ datatype is somewhat outdated?
No, it isn't.
`RETURNS TABLE` is functionally the same as `RETURNS SETOF RECORD` with
`OUT` parameters. However, `RETURNS SETOF RECORD` can return arbitrary
records of no fixed structure too, and
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
What you appear to want is to access arbitrary fields of a record by name.
The reason this isn't supported directly in PL/PgSQL is, AFAIK, mainly
an issue of data typing. Each field in a record may be of a different
type. So the return type would
My notion of anonymous record, and the need of this kind of higher-order
type, are discussed in the links below,
http://stackoverflow.com/q/23439240
Functions can not to *return individual items of a record*
http://stackoverflow.com/q/21246201
PostgreSQL v9.X have real '*array of record*' ?
Peter Padua Krauss wrote
The first question is about performance: *returns table* have the same
performance than *returns record*??
If yes, the *record* datatype is somewhat outdated?
Table defines the possibility to return a set while record can only ever
return a single value; so likely the
On 05/03/2014 09:55 AM, Peter Krauss wrote:
My notion of anonymous record, and the need of this kind of
higher-order type, are discussed in the links below,
http://stackoverflow.com/q/23439240
Functions can not to /return individual items of a record/
http://stackoverflow.com/q/21246201
