Re: plpgsql TABLE patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: plpgsql TABLE patch
Date
Msg-id 1190777787.22117.15.camel@goldbach
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: plpgsql TABLE patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: plpgsql TABLE patch
Re: plpgsql TABLE patch
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2007-25-09 at 22:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I believe that (1) is now committed (renamed to RETURN QUERY),
> but what is the status of (2)?
> 
> Personally I won't cry if this doesn't make it into 8.3, particularly
> since there was some disagreement about it.  But if you intend to make
> it happen, the days grow short.

Sorry, my day job is currently taking up all my spare cycles :( So I
don't think I'll get a chance to wrap this up for 8.3.

My recollection is that the patch was okay as far as it went, but I'm
hesitant to add yet another alternative to the already complex set of
choices for returning composite types and sets from functions. If we
just make TABLE() syntax sugar for the existing OUT function stuff we
would avoid at least some of that complexity, but Pavel still prefers a
distinct proargmode, last I heard.

-Neil




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql TABLE patch
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql TABLE patch