On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 12:13 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 06:07:12PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 11:10 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > postgres=# select pg_xlogfile_name_offset(pg_switch_xlog()); > > > > pg_xlogfile_name_offset > > > > ----------------------------------- > > > > 000000010000000000000001 16777216 > > > > (1 row) > > > > > > > I've not taken up Jim Nasby's suggestion to make this an SRF with > > > > multiple return rows/columns since that much complexity isn't justified > > > > IMHO. > > > > > > Hum, but two columns here seem warranted, don't they? > > > > Maybe. People can write any function they like though, so I'm loathe to > > agonize over this too much. > > True, but making people parse the output of a function to seperate the > two fields seems pretty silly. Is there some reason why > pg_xlogfile_name_offset shouldn't be a SRF, or use two out parameters?
If this makes a difference, then I'll do it. Does it make a difference? -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
