X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B84D8292 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:05:28 -0400 (AST) 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 75266-06 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:05:27 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from tigger.fuhr.org (tigger.fuhr.org [63.214.45.158]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12E2D80BC for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:05:25 -0400 (AST) Received: from winnie.fuhr.org (winnie.fuhr.org [10.1.0.1]) by tigger.fuhr.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id jAN55I0r057016 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:05:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mfuhr@winnie.fuhr.org) Received: from winnie.fuhr.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winnie.fuhr.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jAN55Idq049141; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:05:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mfuhr@winnie.fuhr.org) Received: (from mfuhr@localhost) by winnie.fuhr.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id jAN55Hrj049140; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:05:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mfuhr) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:05:17 -0700 From: Michael Fuhr To: Yves Vindevogel Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Stored Procedure Message-ID: <20051123050517.GA49008@winnie.fuhr.org> References: <20051122184119.M48526@contactbda.com> <33f74d2a046b89d119c349e82b7398de@implements.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <33f74d2a046b89d119c349e82b7398de@implements.be> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/468 X-Sequence-Number: 15725 On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 11:17:41PM +0100, Yves Vindevogel wrote: > But this does not work without the second line, right ? What second line? Instead of returning a specific composite type a function can return RECORD or SETOF RECORD; in these cases the query must provide a column definition list. > BTW, the thing returned is not a record. It's a bunch of fields, not a > complete record or fields of multiple records. What distinction are you making between a record and a bunch of fields? What exactly would you like the function to return? > I'm not so sure it works. Did you try it? If you did and it didn't work then please post exactly what you tried and explain what happened and how that differed from what you'd like. -- Michael Fuhr