| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL: table function support |
| Date: | 2008-06-12 16:33:57 |
| Message-ID: | 10591.1213288437@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 05:56:59PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
>> 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.
Apparently, whether the syntax is byzantine or not is in the eye of
the beholder. I find the TABLE() syntax to be *less* clear.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-06-12 16:40:43 | relscan.h split |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2008-06-12 15:43:28 | Re: SQL: table function support |