Subject: Re: select into composite type / return
Cc: "pgsql-sql@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-sql@lists.postgresql.org>
References: <39dcfab9-4eb2-382b-9186-baf722ca56a0@ringways.co.uk>
 <3523853.1616002010@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Gary Stainburn <gary.stainburn@ringways.co.uk>
Organization: Ringways Garages Ltd
Message-ID: <9eb42b06-9cfa-1e4b-e42b-6f64e99675a5@ringways.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 17:42:34 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3523853.1616002010@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9eb42b06-9cfa-1e4b-e42b-6f64e99675a5%40ringways.co.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On 17/03/2021 17:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> AFAICS these two functions will have exactly the same output behavior,
> ie returning a "breakdown" composite type.  If they act differently
> for you, either you are calling them in different ways or you made
> a mistake somewhere.  I can't help noticing that the RETURN in the
> second function is calling a six-argument function, which is not the
> one you showed first.  Maybe that version of do_breakdown() returns
> something different?
>
> 			regards, tom lane
Hi Tom,

Thanks for the quick response.  The missing argument was because I had 
to use pseudo details to protect intellectual property and I miss-typed 
the code.

You were correct.  The problem was not with the functions, but with how 
I was calling them.

Gary