Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql
Date
Msg-id 162867790807172301t12328449m98c541579d47b882@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
2008/7/18 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
>> Maybe we can use some well defined implicit record, maybe NEW (or
>> RESULT, ROW_RESULT, ROW, TABLE_ROW, ...) like trigger - some like
>
> That sounds like exactly the sort of kluge-solution that I didn't
> want to get involved with ...
>
> Anyway, the core feature is in, and we still have several months
> before 8.4 feature freeze to debate how plpgsql ought to interact
> with it.
>

I agree.
Regards

p.s.

other solution - using referenced types

declare foorec fcename%ROWTYPE -- allows only current fce name
fooscalar fcename.col%TYPE

regards
Pavel Stehule

and many thanks for commit this patch


>                        regards, tom lane
>


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH]-hash index improving
Next
From: Andrew Sullivan
Date:
Subject: Re: Load spikes on 8.1.11