----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Mike Mascari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> That's a rowtype variable, though, not a record variable. I believe our
> >> code will work the same as Oracle for that case.
>
> > 4 TYPE EmpRec IS RECORD (
> > 5 id NUMBER,
> > 6 name VARCHAR(20)
> > 7 );
> > 8 emp_rec EmpRec;
>
> > behaves similarly by returning a NULL value for an unmatched row.
>
> Hm, that's interesting --- does Oracle not think that "record" means
> what our plpgsql think it means? I thought we'd stolen all those
> semantics straight from Oracle.
>
> In plpgsql, you can declare a variable like so:
> foo RECORD;
> and that means that it's an unspecified rowtype, whose fields will be
> determined on-the-fly to match the query that assigns to it. It's this
> case that I'm concerned about, because right now it behaves differently
> from the case where the variable's rowtype is predetermined.
I searched through the Oracle 8 PL/SQL docs pretty thoroughly and couldn't find an
example of a variable whose type was determined at run-time. Maybe the pgPL/SQL RECORD
implementor can shed some more light on the issue, but as far as I can tell, Oracle's
PL/SQL is strongly typed.
Mike Mascari
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
