Hello
2008/5/10 D. Dante Lorenso <dante@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
> Instead of doing this:
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION "my_custom_func" (in_value bigint)
> RETURNS SETOF record AS
> $body$
> ...
> $body$
> LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE;
>
> I'd like to be able to do this:
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION "my_custom_func" (in_value bigint)
> RETURNS SETOF (col1name BIGINT, col2name TEXT, ...) AS
> $body$
> ...
> $body$
> LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE;
>
Standard syntax via ANSI SQL is
CREATE FUNCTION foo(params)
RETURNS TABLE(fields of output table) AS
$$ ...
$$
> Because this is the only function that will be returning that TYPE and I
> don't want to have to create a separate type definition just for the
return
> results of this function.
>
> Maybe even more cool would be if the OUT record was already defined so
that
> I could simply select into that record to send our new rows:
>
> RETURN NEXT OUT;
>
> OUT.col1name := 12345;
> RETURN NEXT OUT;
>
> SELECT 12345, 'sample'
> INTO OUT.col1name, OUT.col2name;
> RETURN NEXT OUT;
>
it's good idea - it was probably main problem of last patch in
plpgsql. In this syntax is clear what is output, so RETURN NEXT
statement can be without params. I am only not sure about name of
default variable - maybe result is better.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
> Just as you've allowed me to define the IN variable names without
needing
> the legacy 'ALIAS $1 ...' format, I'd like to name the returned record
> column names and types in a simple declaration like I show above.
>
> Does this feature request make sense to everyone? It would make
programming
> set returning record functions a lot easier.
>
> -- Dante
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
|
