From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>Hmm, I do not think that syntax means what you think it means ;-).
Its an interesting trick that I came across on DBA SE on a question named "How to use RETURNS TABLE with an existing
tablein PostgreSQL?".
>However, it seems to end up with prorettype =
>physical_table'::regtype anyway thanks to some special rules about
>single-column output tables, so as far as I can see you should get
>the table's composite type OID as the column type OID in the result
>descriptor for "SELECT my_function(...)". Or is that not the case
>you're concerned about?
The query I am running is "SELECT * FROM my_function()". According to Wireshark I can see that the returned
RowDescriptionshows 0 for Table OID and Column index:
PostgreSQL
Type: Row description
Length: 219
Field count: 7
Column name: table_id
Table OID: 0
Column index: 0
Type OID: 20
Column length: 8
Type modifier: -1
Format: Binary (1)
<snipped>
>I'm confused about exactly what you're asking for, but (a) returning a
>type OID where a relation OID is expected is absolutely not OK ---
>there is no guarantee that those OID sets are distinct; (b) regardless
>of that, you seem to be asking for a silent semantic change in the
>wire protocol, which is going to be a very hard sell because it will
>probably break more applications than it makes happy. Why can't you
>get what you need from the composite type OID?
I would indeed like the relation OID to be returned for the composite type that is returned from the function. Maybe
thiscan be simply considered a bug as it does seem like returning the relation OID that is clearly available would be
theexpected behaviour.
Regards,
Maxwell.
