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

Re: SQL: table function support

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-06-12 16:40:43
Subject: relscan.h split
Previous:From: David FetterDate: 2008-06-12 15:43:28
Subject: Re: SQL: table function support

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group