On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 17:29, Tom Lane wrote: > Adam Witney <awitney@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Ah you want to return a record I suppose? > > > CREATE TABLE test (id int, name text); > > INSERT INTO test VALUES(1, 'me'); > > INSERT INTO test VALUES(2, 'you'); > > > CREATE FUNCTION test_func() RETURNS SETOF record AS ' > > SELECT id, name FROM test; > > ' LANGUAGE SQL; > > Or better, "RETURNS SETOF test", so you don't have to describe the > output record type every time you call it. It strikes me that there are two problems with this approach: 1) It stores the return values in the database, that seems a waste 2) It's slightly more complicated in that I have to delete the return values from the previous call before inserting the return values from this call, making it even more complex and slow. > > regards, tom lane -Nigel ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
