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

Re: TODO item

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TODO item
Date: 2009-03-28 14:38:26
Message-ID: 873acxemql.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:

 >> The unnest() implementation is largely unrelated to the standard
 >> one, which is impossible to provide without LATERAL.

 Bruce> I removed the duplicate item; we can add more details about
 Bruce> what additional functionality we need once we get user
 Bruce> feedback.

The missing functionality from the spec is:

1) select ... from foo, unnest(foo.bar);   -- UNNEST is implicitly LATERAL

2) multiple arrays:  select * from unnest(a,b);

3) expansion of composite arrays: unnest(a) should return as many
columns as there are in the elements of a, not just one composite
column

4) WITH ORDINALITY - adds a column to the result with the array index

It's point (1) that's the killer - without it, unnest() is just a
trivial shorthand for stuff that can be done anyway; it doesn't
actually add any functionality.

-- 
Andrew.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2009-03-28 14:44:03
Subject: Re: TODO item
Previous:From: Andrew GierthDate: 2009-03-28 14:28:24
Subject: Re: Crash in gist insertion on pathological box data

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