Re: Table function support - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Table function support
Date
Msg-id 4221.1176243434@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Table function support  ("Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@hotmail.com>)
Responses Re: Table function support  ("Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@hotmail.com>)
Re: Table function support  ("Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@hotmail.com>)
List pgsql-patches
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@hotmail.com> writes:
> this patch allows using SQL2003 syntax for set returning functions. It is
> based on using new type of argmode - PROARGMODE_TABLE.

I've been looking at this, and my feeling is that we should drop the
PROARGMODE_TABLE business and just define RETURNS TABLE(x int, y int)
as exactly equivalent to RETURNS SETOF RECORD with x and y treated as
OUT parameters.  There isn't any advantage to distinguishing the cases
that outweighs breaking client code that looks at pg_proc.proargmodes.
I don't believe that the SQL spec prevents us from exposing those
parameter names to PL functions, especially since none of our PLs are
in the standard at all.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix mdsync never-ending loop problem
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix mdsync never-ending loop problem