On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 9:50 AM Ayush Vatsa <ayushvatsa1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1/ I wanted to know what's the difference between the above three > definitions. > As per my understanding, "fun1" and "fun2" look the same, taking one > integer and returning two columns with multiple rows. > Yes. > > Can the above definition (used for fun1 and fun2) cover both single and > multiple row scenarios. > In so far as one is a valid number of rows to return from a function that returns zero or more rows, yes. But if the function is incapable of returning more than one result it should not be marked with table/setof on semantic grounds. > 2/ How does someone decide which type of definition is to be used? > > Between 1 and 2 is a style choice. I prefer TABLE. Using setof is more useful when the returned type is predefined. Or a true record where the caller has to specify the shape. For 3, having a non-set-returning-function that outputs multiple columns is just odd, IMO. Personally I'd go for pre-defining a composite type, then return that type. David J.
