On Dec 7, 2007 6:57 PM, Amit Phatarphekar <amit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Currently if I have to return columns from multiple tables, I have to define > my own TYPE and then return SETOF that type in the function. I've provided > an example below. > > Now, if I have to add a column to the select query, I have drop the existing > TYPE definition, create a new TYPE with the new column added to it, and then > modify the function sql to return this extra column. > > Question – Is there any other way to doing this? - Is everybody following > the same approach out there? I know I can return a SETOF RECORD type and > then define in the function call, all the columns that are being returned. > But I like TYPE the definition approach better than this anyways. Let me > know if I'm missing anything in the mix. > you can use (in 8.1+) out parameters and define the return type as record. This is probably the best way in terms of management, unless you want to return a type for other reasons. merlin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
