On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 1 Oct. 2016 05:20, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I think the last of those suggestions has come up before. It has the
>>> large advantage that you don't have to remember a different syntax for
>>> copy-as-a-function.
>
>> That sounds fantastic. It'd help this copy variant retain festure parity
>> with normal copy. And it'd bring us closer to being able to FETCH in non
>> queries.
>
> On second thought, though, this couldn't exactly duplicate the existing
> COPY syntax, because COPY relies heavily on the rowtype of the named
> target table to tell it what it's copying. You'd need some new syntax
> to provide the list of column names and types, which puts a bit of
> a hole in the "syntax we already know" argument. A SRF-returning-record
> would have a leg up on that, because we do have existing syntax for
> defining the concrete rowtype that any particular call returns.
One big disadvantage of SRF-returning-record syntax is that functions
are basically unwrappable with generic wrappers sans major gymnastics
such as dynamically generating the query and executing it. This is a
major disadvantage relative to the null::type hack we use in the
populate_record style functions and perhaps ought to make this
(SRF-returning-record syntax) style of use discouraged for useful
library functions. If there were a way to handle wrapping I'd
withdraw this minor objection -- this has come up in dblink
discussions a few times).
merlin
