Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Out of interest - why do SRFs need to have a table or view defined that
> matches their return type? Why can't you just create the type for the
> function and set it up as a dependency?
>
The only current way to create a composite type (and hence have it for
the function to reference) is to define a table or view.
We have discussed the need for a stand-alone composite type, but I think
Tom favors doing that as part of a larger project, namely changing the
association of pg_attributes to pg_type instead of pg_class (if I
understand/remember it correctly).
Joe