On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 15:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Mario Splivalo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Wo-ha, makes perfect sense. So, I'd go by with declaring the rec as > > varchar, instead as of a record. Wich is what I should do in the first > > place. > > Or just return the correct field out of it. > > RETURN NEXT returnValue.fieldname; > > I think you may have to do it this way because the FOR loop wants a > record variable.
Yes, you're right. Funny implementation of the FOR loop :) Mike ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org