On 12 Aug 2011, at 17:43, Merlin Moncure wrote: > you can't have it both ways. at the time the function call is > executed, the return type/fields must be known. you can do this by > either a. explicitly defining the function return type or b. > describing the function return type in the function call, or c. use a > generic type to hold the output record structure which can be > parsed/dealt with later, like text or hstore.
Thanks. I'm trying to do your option (a) -- defining the function return type. But I want to do this by referring to an existing table type -- which I know the returned fields must match -- rather than laboriously retype the field definition list for that table. The problem is that I can't make the database accept the table type as a field definition list, when that seems like a perfectly sensible (and in this case much more convenient) way to define the fields that will be returned. (With apologies for thoughtless top-posting in reply to Ray's earlier message). Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
