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

Re: SQL: table function support

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SQL: table function support
Date: 2008-06-10 06:42:56
Message-ID: 1213080176.12454.5.camel@goldbach (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 06:42 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> internally is table functions implemenation identical with SRF.

It's not the internals that I'm concerned about.

> Semantically is far - user's doesn't specify return type (what is from
> PostgreSQL), but specifies return table, what is more natural. What
> more - for users is transparent chaotic joice betwen "SETOF RECORD"
> for multicolumns sets and "SETOF type".

Well, I'd just like to see some thought about how this *entire* feature
ought to work, rather than just adding new knobs and syntax variants
incrementally and seemingly at random. Just because it happens to be in
the standard isn't really a compelling reason to make an overly-complex
part of the system even more complicated, IMHO...


In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-06-10 08:56:06
Subject: Re: minor ts_type.h comment fix
Previous:From: Pavan DeolaseeDate: 2008-06-10 05:32:48
Subject: VACUUM Improvements - WIP Patch

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