Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 23:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The syntax you are showing is designed
>> to return a scalar. It will (and should) barf on multiple rows as well
>> as multiple columns.
> I don't understand; the example I posted is of an SRF that ret
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 23:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The syntax you are showing is designed
> to return a scalar. It will (and should) barf on multiple rows as well
> as multiple columns.
I don't understand; the example I posted is of an SRF that returns
multiple rows of multiple columns, which i
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 23:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > neilc=# select a, (select * from abc) from abc;
> > ERROR: subquery must return only one column
>
> > Is there a reason we can't treat a subselect in the target list as
> > returning a composite type?
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> neilc=# select a, (select * from abc) from abc;
> ERROR: subquery must return only one column
> Is there a reason we can't treat a subselect in the target list as
> returning a composite type?
Given the 8.0 infrastructure for unnamed record types it migh
This behavior seems inconsistent:
neilc=# create table abc (a int, b int);
CREATE TABLE
neilc=# create function foo_abc() returns setof abc as 'select * from
abc' language sql;
CREATE FUNCTION
neilc=# insert into abc values (5, 10);
INSERT 17234 1
neilc=# insert into abc values (10, 20);
INSERT 17
