On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 07:18:43PM -0400, Korry Douglas wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
>> I'd like to take a whack at making set-returning functions
>> returning SETOF RECORD a little more fun to use. Let's imagine
>> that we have a table foo and a function returning SETOF RECORD that
>> can return
David Fetter wrote:
I'd like to take a whack at making set-returning functions returning
SETOF RECORD a little more fun to use. Let's imagine that we have a
table foo and a function returning SETOF RECORD that can return foos.
The call might look something like:
SELECT a, b, c
FROM f(ROW OF foo
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:00:33PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> maybe I don't understand well your idea. There exist simple syntax -
> table function
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-02/msg00341.php
>
> and it is standard
It's completely different from your patch
Hello
maybe I don't understand well your idea. There exist simple syntax -
table function
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-02/msg00341.php
and it is standard
regards
Pavel Stehule
On 30/03/2008, David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'd like to take a whack at
Folks,
I'd like to take a whack at making set-returning functions returning
SETOF RECORD a little more fun to use. Let's imagine that we have a
table foo and a function returning SETOF RECORD that can return foos.
The call might look something like:
SELECT a, b, c
FROM f(ROW OF foo)
WHERE ...;