Hi > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general- > ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Klaver > Sent: Donnerstag, 27. August 2015 15:41 > To: Christopher BROWN <br...@reflexe.fr> > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Strange TRIGGER failure with FOR ... IN ... LOOP ... > INSERT > > On 08/27/2015 06:33 AM, Christopher BROWN wrote: > > Hello Adrian, > > > > Yep, Charles' explanation helped me understand what was going on. > > Before that, I was as confused as you were (in your first reply) about > > how access_mode could be NULL (with the same reasoning). In any case, > > thanks for your links ; I did try searching the web for the answer > > before posting, but got too many irrelevant results given that I had to > > search using very common terms. > > Yeah, I did not get Charles's second post until I sent my second, so it > was redundant. > > > > > I've concluded the the RECORD type is the best-fit for my approach. I > > don't know if it's any faster that using SELECT * with a specific > > %ROWTYPE given that the data doesn't go anywhere outside the function > > body. I don't know if the order in which columns are returned (by > > either SELECT * or using explicit column names matters when using > > %ROWTYPE), although I'll assume that PostgreSQL is smart enough to match > > things up correctly, if I need to write a function that returns > > instances of any given %ROWTYPE in the future. > > I don't know, I have always just used SELECT * as I needed all the > columns anyway.
It is probably a matter of taste, more than best practices. I find the variant with RECORD better, because you only search for the fields that you need. In this case it may make a little difference, but if you happen to have a table with many more columns, it would be a waste of resources, unless, as in Adrian's case, you do need all the fields. While using a rowtype then SELECT * is guaranteed, IMHO, to return that record's fields in the correct order. Listing the fields explicitly, as you already noticed, could lead to a maintenance nightmare if anything changes in the table structure. In both cases you are still not safe against, e.g. changes of column names. But I guess that this is not an issue so far. Bye Charles -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
