Re: Redundant explicit field name/types description while select from function with return type of record

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 01:43:25PM -0300, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> Eugen.Konkov@aldec.com wrote:
> >a column definition list is required for functions returning "record"
> >It seems a BUG
> >
> I don't think so. We can say it is a missing feature. As stated in [1], 
> record types don't have a predefined structure -- they're placeholders. 

I was having a similar discussion with Gregory Stark about this and
hadn't realised that such small amounts of state was recorded with each
row.

> How do you know the row structure before hand? Its structure can be 
> changed on-the-fly.

Sorry, I don't understand this comment.  Could you elaborate?


  Sam