Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: unnest

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,John Hansen <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: unnest
Date: 2004-11-29 18:01:11
Message-ID: 20000.1101751271@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> Problem is that a polymorphic SRF cannot (currently at least) both 
> accept and return type anyarray.

Beyond that, would the proposed function really be SQL-compliant other
than this one point?  I had the idea that UNNEST required some
fundamental changes (but I might be confusing it with something else).

			regards, tom lane

In response to

  • Re: unnest at 2004-11-29 17:23:56 from Joe Conway

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2004-11-29 18:30:27
Subject: Re: Documentation on PITR still scarce
Previous:From: Thomas HallgrenDate: 2004-11-29 17:50:17
Subject: Re: Status of server side Large Object support?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group