On 07/07/2015 10:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> > wrote: >> That explains why the first example works while the second does >> not. I'm not sure how hard it would be to fix that, but it >> appears that that is where we should focus. > > Wouldn't it be fine if we drop some of the functions proposed > without impacting the feature? Most of the functions overlap with > each other, making us see the limitations we see. > > Hence, wouldn't it be enough to just have this set of functions in > the patch? dblink_get_result(text, bool, anyelement) dblink (text, > text, boolean, anyelement) dblink_fetch (text, text, int, boolean, > anyelement)
I think new using function names is better especially if we are only going to support a subset. I have no idea what to call them however. Did someone else suggest dblink_any(), etc?
+1
Pavel
I also think that the ultimately best solution is (what I believe to be spec compliant) SRF casting, but I guess that could be a task for a later day.