To: Markus Schaber <schabios@logi-track.com>
Cc: Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>,
	Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Where are we on stored procedures? 
In-reply-to: <421F6C8E.40804@logi-track.com> 
References: <26903.1109275995@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0502250952150.23330@linuxworld.com.au>
	<29295.1109295241@sss.pgh.pa.us> <421F6C8E.40804@logi-track.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Markus Schaber <schabios@logi-track.com>
	message dated "Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:21:02 +0100"
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:28:06 -0500
Message-ID: <6954.1109356086@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Markus Schaber <schabios@logi-track.com> writes:
> Tom Lane schrieb:
>> 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.

The advantage of not explicitly creating the rowtypes is that we don't
need to worry about choosing nonconflicting names for them.  So I think
I'd go down the anonymous-rowtype path even in the first cut.

			regards, tom lane