On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 05:56:59PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
> 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. The
> existing patchwork of features is confusing enough as it is...
The way we declare set-returning functions ranges from odd to
byzantine. A clear, easy-to-understand syntax (even if it's just
sugar over something else) like Pavel's would go a long way toward
getting developers actually to use them.
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-06-12 16:33:57|
|Subject: Re: SQL: table function support |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-06-12 14:40:13|
|Subject: Re: Better formatting of functions in pg_dump |