On Jan 27, 2005, at 11:10 AM, KÖPFERL Robert wrote:
> That's bad.
> Is there really no ohter way?
> So it takes TWO termoral tables. Or even more?
I'm not sure what is bad. In what sense is it bad? How does more than
one table come into things?
> And it can't be just sql because theres more around that statement.
I'm not sure what you mean. Which statement?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sean Davis [mailto:sdavis2@mail.nih.gov]
>> Sent: Donnerstag, 27. Jänner 2005 14:57
>> To: KÖPFERL Robert
>> Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
>> Subject: Re: [SQL] What's the equivalent in PL/pgSQL
>>
>>
>> See this section of the manual:
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/plpgsql-control-
>> structures.html
>>
>> In particular, look at 35.7.1.2 and 35.7.4. I think you need
>> to loop
>> through the results of the query in order to return them. If
>> you just
>> want to return the result set as a whole to another function
>> that needs
>> to work with the data, you can use a cursor.
>>
>> Sean
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2005, at 7:46 AM, KÖPFERL Robert wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm trying to find an equivalent plpgsql function as this:
>>>
>>> func x returns SETOF "Tablename" AS
>>> '
>>> Select * from "Tablename";
>>> ' language sql
>>>
>>>
>>> How is this accomplished with plpgsql while not using a loop or a
>>> second and
>>> third temporal table?
>>>
>>> ---------------------------(end of
>>> broadcast)---------------------------
>>> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>>>
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
