On Friday 03 April 2009 6:51:05 am Adrian Klaver wrote: > On Thursday 02 April 2009 6:16:44 pm Adrian Klaver wrote: > > Now I remember. Its something that trips me up, the RECORD in RETURN > > setof RECORD is not the same thing as the RECORD in DECLARE RECORD. See > > below for a better explanation- > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/plpgsql-declarations.html# > >PL PGSQL-DECLARATION-RECORDS Note that RECORD is not a true data type, > > only a placeholder. One should also realize that when a PL/pgSQL function > > is declared to return type record, this is not quite the same concept as > > a record variable, even though such a function might use a record > > variable to hold its result. In both cases the actual row structure is > > unknown when the function is written, but for a function returning record > > the actual structure is determined when the calling query is parsed, > > whereas a record variable can change its row structure on-the-fly. > > > > > > > > -- > > Adrian Klaver > > akla...@comcast.net > > For this particular case the following works. > > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION test_function(integer) RETURNS record > AS $Body$ > DECLARE croid integer; > DECLARE R RECORD; > BEGIN > SELECT INTO croid 2; > SELECT INTO R croid,$1; > RETURN R; > END; > > $Body$ > LANGUAGE plpgsql; > > -- > Adrian Klaver > akla...@comcast.net
Forgot to show how to call it. test=# SELECT * from test_function(1) as test(c1 int,c2 int); c1 | c2 ----+---- 2 | 1 (1 row) -- Adrian Klaver akla...@comcast.net -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
