On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 06:07:12PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 11:10 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > > > > > > postgres=# select pg_xlogfile_name_offset(pg_switch_xlog()); > > > pg_xlogfile_name_offset > > > ----------------------------------- > > > 000000010000000000000001 16777216 > > > (1 row) > > > > > I've not taken up Jim Nasby's suggestion to make this an SRF with > > > multiple return rows/columns since that much complexity isn't justified > > > IMHO. > > > > Hum, but two columns here seem warranted, don't they? > > Maybe. People can write any function they like though, so I'm loathe to > agonize over this too much.
True, but making people parse the output of a function to seperate the two fields seems pretty silly. Is there some reason why pg_xlogfile_name_offset shouldn't be a SRF, or use two out parameters? -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
