On 12 Aug 2011, at 19:17, 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
> On 12/08/2011 17:26, George MacKerron wrote:
>>
>> The point of the function is that you can pass it any table name
>> (along with some other parameters) and it returns rows from that
>> named table.
>
> OK, fair enough but what exactly are you trying to d
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
rows from that named table.
On 12 Aug 2011, at 17:22, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
> On 12/08/2011 17:04, George MacKerron wrote:
>> Hi all.
>>
>> I have a function returning setof record. The name of a table it acts
>> on is one of its input variables, and its outpu
accept a table type in lieu of a
manually-recreated column definition list?
(And if not, where might I best suggest this as a possible future enhancement?)
Many thanks for your help,
George
--
George MacKerron | +44 (0)20 7193 7369 | http://personal.lse.ac.uk/mackerro/
Department of Geogr
