Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Pavel Stehule
Тема Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2
Дата
Msg-id CAFj8pRC+QUHrp2hCmi25U=Ao3qS3DZ_r1Lpad0kiqucgYh70iQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2  (Joel Jacobson <joel@trustly.com>)
Ответы Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения



2014-09-04 14:37 GMT+02:00 Joel Jacobson <joel@trustly.com>:


On 4 sep 2014, at 11:42, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
2014-09-04 11:22 GMT+02:00 Joel Jacobson <joel@trustly.com>:
The point was, RETURNS returns 1 while RETURNS SETOF returns 0 .. n.

no RETURNS return "VALUE" (it is not a row) .. and in combination with SELECT - value will be a row. RETURNS SETOF returns rows

I intentionally excluded the data type of what is returned.
1 "VALUE" vs 0...n "VALUES"
Do you still fail to see the point 1 "VALUE" is special in the context of what a function returns?

sorry, I don't understand .. for me SRF functions are absolutly different monsters than scalar, array or composite function - so its impossible to compare it.

Pavel
 

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: