The error message isn't very helpful:
regress=> SELECT * FROM compute_all_pair_by_craig(100);
ERROR: a column definition list is required for functions returning "record"
LINE 1: SELECT * FROM compute_all_pair_by_craig(100);
but if you rephrase the query to call it as a proper set-returning function you'll see the real problem:
regress=> SELECT * FROM compute_all_pair_by_craig(100);
ERROR: a column definition list is required for functions returning "record"
LINE 1: SELECT * FROM compute_all_pair_by_craig(100);
If you're using SETOF RECORD
without an OUT
parameter list you must specify the results in the calling statement, eg:
regress=> SELECT * FROM compute_all_pair_by_craig(100) theresult(a integer, b integer);
However, it's much better to use RETURNS TABLE
or OUT
parameters. With the former syntax your function would be:
create or replace function compute_all_pair_by_craig(id_obj bigint)
returns table(a integer, b integer) as $$
begin
return query select o.id, generate_series(0,o.value) from m_obj as o;
end;
$$ language plpgsql;
This is callable in SELECT-list context and can be used without creating a type explicitly or specifying the result structure at the call site.
As for the second half of the question, what's happening is that the 1st case specifies two separate columns in a SELECT-list, wheras the second returns a single composite. It's actually not to do with how you're returning the result, but how you're invoking the function. If we create the sample function:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION twocols() RETURNS TABLE(a integer, b integer)
AS $$ SELECT x, x FROM generate_series(1,5) x; $$ LANGUAGE sql;
You'll see the difference in the two ways to call a set-returning function - in the SELECT
list, a PostgreSQL specific non-standard extension with quirky behaviour:
regress=> SELECT twocols();
twocols
---------
(1,1)
(2,2)
(3,3)
(4,4)
(5,5)
(5 rows)
or as a table in the more standard way:
regress=> SELECT * FROM twocols();
a | b
---+---
1 | 1
2 | 2
3 | 3
4 | 4
5 | 5
(5 rows)
If the results are not meant to be used in a subquery but by code, you may use a REFCURSOR
in a transaction.
Example:
CREATE FUNCTION example_cursor() RETURNS refcursor AS $$
DECLARE
c refcursor;
BEGIN
c:='mycursorname';
OPEN c FOR select * from generate_series(1,100000);
return c;
end;
$$ language plpgsql;
Usage for the caller:
BEGIN;
SELECT example_cursor();
[output: mycursor]
FETCH 10 FROM mycursor;
Output:
generate_series
-----------------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CLOSE mycursor;
END;
When not interested in piecemeal retrieval, FETCH ALL FROM cursorname
may also be used to stream all results to the caller in one step.
Best Answer
I don't believe it's documented. The behavior is incorrect or at best inconsistent but maintained probably because of a huge existing user code base that would break if it were corrected. The issue is caused by differences in how returns VOID is coded with SQL vs plpgsql. See: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8319986/postgresql-functions-returning-void