Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is
>SELECT 42, srf();
> the same as
>SELECT 42, * FROM srf();
> ?
No.
> In my view the first version is an error. It's not like you can put a
> normal table in the select list, so why can we put a set returning
> function there? Ie, is it rea
On Mon, 9 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bug?
>
> Unimplemented feature.
Is
SELECT 42, srf();
the same as
SELECT 42, * FROM srf();
?
In my view the first version is an error. It's not like you can put a
normal table in the select list, so why can we put a set returning
function there?
Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So it seems that it's not just the type that decide how the function can
> be used, it's also the language the function is defined in.
Yup.
> Bug?
Unimplemented feature.
regards, tom lane
---(end of
On Mon, 9 May 2005, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> [ I can call sql or C SRFs without FROM, but not plpgsql.]
Trying this in pltcl (while knowing nothing about tcl and the docs not
mentioning any srf support) shows:
CREATE FUNCTION tclset() RETURNS SETOF int AS 'return 0' LANGUAGE pltcl;
SELECT *
An issue came up on irc. How come that this work:
SELECT generate_series(0,1);
but
SELECT foo(0,1);
does not, where foo is my own set returning function, like this example:
CREATE FUNCTION foo(a int, b int)
RETURNS setof int
AS 'BEGIN RETURN NEXT a;
