On Dec 7, 2007 6:57 PM, Amit Phatarphekar <amit@visionaire-us.com> wrote:
> Currently if I have to return columns from multiple tables, I have to define
> my own TYPE and then return SETOF that type in the function. I've provided
> an example below.
>
> Now, if I have to add a column to the select query, I have drop the existing
> TYPE definition, create a new TYPE with the new column added to it, and then
> modify the function sql to return this extra column.
>
> Question – Is there any other way to doing this? - Is everybody following
> the same approach out there? I know I can return a SETOF RECORD type and
> then define in the function call, all the columns that are being returned.
> But I like TYPE the definition approach better than this anyways. Let me
> know if I'm missing anything in the mix.
>
you can use (in 8.1+) out parameters and define the return type as
record. This is probably the best way in terms of management, unless
you want to return a type for other reasons.
merlin