Re: [HACKERS] Improving ALTER TYPE support

Ok, this way works and the proposed way isn't necessary. On 5/24/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "John Jawed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I guess I don't understand what one has to do with the other (SRF's > returning records and OUT parameters). I always thought they were exclusive, >

Re: [HACKERS] Improving ALTER TYPE support

Tom, > If you write something like > > create function foo (in p1 int, out r1 int, out r2 text) > returns setof record D'oh! I feel like a dork now. I forgot we had this. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--

Re: [HACKERS] Improving ALTER TYPE support

"John Jawed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I guess I don't understand what one has to do with the other (SRF's > returning records and OUT parameters). I always thought they were exclusive, > could you elaborate? (BTW, please don't post uselessly HTML-ified mail.) If you write something like

Re: [HACKERS] Improving ALTER TYPE support

I guess I don't understand what one has to do with the other (SRF's returning records and OUT parameters). I always thought they were exclusive, could you elaborate?On 5/24/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Josh Berkus writes:>> I've been working on a function which retu

Re: [HACKERS] Improving ALTER TYPE support

Josh Berkus writes: >> I've been working on a function which returns a setof a composite type. >> Everytime I've changed the structure of the returning setof, I've had to >> change the type accordingly, which current means doing a drop type ... >> cascade down to the function. We should allow one

Re: [HACKERS] Improving ALTER TYPE support

Makes more sense to do that, and I think it'll be cleaner to implement as well.On 5/23/06, Josh Berkus wrote:John,> I've been working on a function which returns a setof a composite type. > Everytime I've changed the structure of the returning setof, I've had to> change the typ

Re: [HACKERS] Improving ALTER TYPE support

John, > I've been working on a function which returns a setof a composite type. > Everytime I've changed the structure of the returning setof, I've had to > change the type accordingly, which current means doing a drop type ... > cascade down to the function. We should allow one of the following: