> I'm glad it worked. > > However I'm still concerned with why you need the nonportable form of > ??::text etc. > > Is this because you are running a user defined function which has no > schema associated with it the way a regular table or view would? > > Is there some way to make it more portable, i.e. not needing to specify > explicit types for columns? > > -Will >
Yes this is true. Its a PLpgsql-function. This runs only on PostgreSQL and I think this "::type"-form is also only usable under postgreSQL?!? But I have to do it this way. Its a project for the university, and its focus on databases. So it doesn't has to be portable for other databases. It is important that we become familiar with database-procedures. Gruss Christian -- Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko! Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner
