Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2

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.

When looking from the other end of the problem, we are
using SELECT/INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE *SET statements* in pl/pgsql
when we really want scalars.

My understanding is that one main drivers of starting this thread
was wanting also guaranteed SCALAR versions of these.

And wanting them in a way that is easy to use.


Cheers

-- 
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ