Ok, this way works and the proposed way isn't necessary.
On 5/24/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "John Jawed" <johnjawed@gmail.com> writes:
> > I guess I don't understand what one has to do with the other (SRF's
> > returning records and OUT parameters). I always thought they were exclusive,
> > could you elaborate?
>
> (BTW, please don't post uselessly HTML-ified mail.)
>
> If you write something like
>
> create function foo (in p1 int, out r1 int, out r2 text)
> returns setof record
>
> then you've effectively got a function returning an anonymous composite
> type (here, with one int and one text column). I don't see a case for
> inventing a separate facility that will pretty much just duplicate this
> functionality.
>
> regards, tom lane
>