Re: SQL: table function support

2008/6/10 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 13:03 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> this patch add support of table functions syntax like ANSI SQL 2003.
>
>> I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I wonder if we really need
>> *more* syntax variants for declaring set-returning functions.
>
> I've been saying right along that we don't. The proposed patch adds
> no measurable new functionality; its only reason to live is standards
> compliance, and I'm not convinced that's worth the confusion. Our
> implementation of functions is (and always will be) far enough away
> from the standard that notational issues like this are hardly the top
> of the problem list for someone wishing to import a spec-compliant
> function.

a) current syntax is strange for beginers (and I am sure - isn't nice)
- look to mailing lists. I belive so ansi syntax is better.

b) it's needed for well SQL/PSM support. With table functions and
RETURN QUERY we are neer standard.

>
> (It's also worth asking where the import is coming from. Who implements
> the spec syntax anyway? DB2 maybe, but when was the last time we heard
> from anyone trying to migrate from DB2 to PG?)
>

lot of smaller new databases respect ANSI SQL 200x well - not only db2

> regards, tom lane
>