X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27979D1B536 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 23:47:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61716-02 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:46:46 -0400 (AST) Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server228.ethosmedia.com [209.128.84.228]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD4D0D1B502 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:46:42 -0400 (AST) Received: from [63.195.55.98] (HELO spooky) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.2) with ESMTP id 3889465; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:47:22 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Josh Berkus Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: "Rich Seiersen" Subject: Re: plpgsql question Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 15:46:35 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 References: In-Reply-To: Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <200311081546.35377.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/62 X-Sequence-Number: 15877 Rich, > I don't want to abuse you - so if this is the wrong forum for this, feel > free to toss it back with direction :-) No, but I do think that you should CC a mailing list becuase: 1) Someone else may have direct experience with your problem and answer more quickly than me, and: 2) Other people will want to read your issue and share in the solution. Therefore I've cc'd the SQL list. Hope that's OK. I've omitted the full text of your procedure in case it contains proprietary info. > I think I might be running up against an error with plpgsql in temrs of seg > faults with null values in stored procs. Here is my stored proc, the > error, and the datatype definintion: > 1. I am using 7.3 btw > 2. WARNING: Error occurred while executing PL/pgSQL function > getcaseaccounttransactionlist > WARNING: line 44 at return next > ERROR: Wrong record type supplied in RETURN NEXT Um, that's a regular error. How is it a Seg Fault?