Thread: AW: Fix for tablename in targetlist

> True, although there's a certain inconsistency in allowing a whole row
> to be passed to a function by
> 
>     select foo(pg_class) from pg_class;
> 
> and not allowing the same row to be output by

Imho there is a big difference between the two. The foo(pg_class) calls a function 
with argument type opaque or type pg_class.
I would go so far as to say, that above foo function call would have a
different meaning if written with 'pg_class.*'.
select foo(pg_class.*) from pg_class; 
Could be interpreted as calling a function foo with pg_class ncolumns 
arguments of the corresponding types.

> 
>     select pg_class from pg_class; 

Probably a valid interpretation would be if type pg_class or opaque had an 
output function.

Andreas

Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at> writes:
>> select pg_class from pg_class; 

> Probably a valid interpretation would be if type pg_class or opaque had an 
> output function.

Hmm, good point.  We shouldn't foreclose the possibility of handling
things that way.  Okay, I'm convinced: allowing .* to be omitted isn't
a good idea.
        regards, tom lane

> Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at> writes:
> >> select pg_class from pg_class; 
> 
> > Probably a valid interpretation would be if type pg_class or opaque had an 
> > output function.
> 
> Hmm, good point.  We shouldn't foreclose the possibility of handling
> things that way.  Okay, I'm convinced: allowing .* to be omitted isn't
> a good idea.
> 

OK, old patch causing an elog being added now.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026