I guess I don't understand what one has to do with the other (SRF's returning records and OUT parameters). I always thought they were exclusive, could you elaborate?
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >> I've been working on a function which returns a setof a composite type. >> Everytime I've changed the structure of the returning setof, I've had to >> change the type accordingly, which current means doing a drop type ... >> cascade down to the function. We should allow one of the following:
> Why not go all the way and work out a way to define an SRF return type as a > part of the function? e.g.
Um, isn't that exactly what the OUT parameter support already gives you, ie, an anonymous record type?
