Craig Ringer writes:
> What you appear to want is to access arbitrary fields of a record by name.
> The reason this isn't supported directly in PL/PgSQL is, AFAIK, mainly
> an issue of data typing. Each field in a record may be of a different
> type. So the return type would change based on the f
On 05/03/2014 09:55 PM, Peter Krauss wrote:
> If "yes", the /record/ datatype is somewhat outdated?
No, it isn't.
`RETURNS TABLE` is functionally the same as `RETURNS SETOF RECORD` with
`OUT` parameters. However, `RETURNS SETOF RECORD` can return arbitrary
records of no fixed structure too, and
On 05/03/2014 09:55 AM, Peter Krauss wrote:
My notion of "anonymous record", and the need of this kind of
"higher-order type", are discussed in the links below,
http://stackoverflow.com/q/23439240
"Functions can not to /return individual items of a record/"
http://stackoverflow.com/q/212462
Peter Padua Krauss wrote
> The first question is about performance: "*returns table*" have the same
> performance than "*returns record*"??
> If "yes", the *record* datatype is somewhat outdated?
Table defines the possibility to return a set while record can only ever
return a single value; so lik
My notion of "anonymous record", and the need of this kind of "higher-order
type", are discussed in the links below,
http://stackoverflow.com/q/23439240
"Functions can not to *return individual items of a record*"
http://stackoverflow.com/q/21246201
"PostgreSQL v9.X have real '*array of recor
