X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED8C5521B; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:20:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25650-02; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:20:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.logi-track.com (www.logi-track.com [213.239.193.212]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D426531C7; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:20:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from kingfisher.intern.logi-track.com (pD95DCE36.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.93.206.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.logi-track.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59FFA308D6; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:21:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kingfisher.intern.logi-track.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7451FAB0E1; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:21:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <421F6C8E.40804@logi-track.com> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:21:02 +0100 From: Markus Schaber User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050116) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane Cc: Gavin Sherry , Neil Conway , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [JDBC] Where are we on stored procedures? References: <26903.1109275995@sss.pgh.pa.us> <29295.1109295241@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <29295.1109295241@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig95A4819853BB4EB75E5B7BAA" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.05 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200502/943 X-Sequence-Number: 64771 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig95A4819853BB4EB75E5B7BAA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Tom, Tom Lane schrieb: > Yeah, but only because you have to do it explicitly. I was wondering > whether we couldn't bury that mechanism under the hood. (In particular= , > given the improved support in 8.0 for anonymous record types, we could > in theory have the backend invent a record type on-the-fly to match > whatever list of OUT parameters a particular function has.) It would not be necessarily on the fly, at least in the first step we possibly get away with declaraing the returned tuples at creation time and implicitly creating those tuple types. The declaration could be like "returns (touchedrows int, somethingelse datetime), setof (article int, description text)" for a function/method that has two resultsets, one of those with always one row. markus --=20 markus schaber | dipl. informatiker logi-track ag | rennweg 14-16 | ch 8001 z=FCrich phone +41-43-888 62 52 | fax +41-43-888 62 53 mailto:schabios@logi-track.com | www.logi-track.com --------------enig95A4819853BB4EB75E5B7BAA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCH2yOOVWsnapT9i0RA0wUAKCMkGEdffFFBAOhPoZs5ANghfJzCgCfSe3Y mpVX7XEtmh1qj14XGPtC+xk= =NBHW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig95A4819853BB4EB75E5B7BAA--