Re: returning SETOF RECORD - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: returning SETOF RECORD
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobaNok+uW_6awRcLN9f=D+GgOATaG1gLqp+989R44yvZQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: returning SETOF RECORD  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I think you're confusing these functions with the kind that specify
>>> their own output rowtype --- which we *can* handle, via a list of OUT
>>> parameters.  In these cases, the entire point is that the user has to
>>> specify what SQL rowtype he wants out of the conversion.
>
>> Actually, on further study, I found that isn't quite true.  dblink()'s
>> materializeResult() calls CreateTemplateTupleDesc() if the query
>> returns PGRES_COMMAND_OK and get_call_result_type() only if it returns
>> PGRES_TUPLES_OK.
>
> Right --- in the command case, dblink acts like a function that does know
> its output rowtype.  None too consistent.
>
> We could imagine allowing dblink to default to an output rowtype of
> "(text,text,...)" if it can't get anything from its call environment.
> I'm not sure if that would be an improvement or not.

Well, right now, it doesn't seem like it would buy much.  If some of
the cases I showed failing in the previous email could be made to
actually do something useful, then it'd be more worthwhile.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Upcoming back-branch releases
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: 9.3: more problems with "Could not open file "pg_multixact/members/xxxx"