Re: SQL: table function support

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SQL: table function support
Date: 2008-06-10 15:09:57
Message-ID: 17756.1213110597@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> what is more logical and consistent?

They're both utterly arbitrary, but the "setof" syntax has been in
Postgres since forever, and applies to more things than just "record".
The other one doesn't fit in with anything else --- it's just a
syntactic wart.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-06-10 15:14:57 Re: SQL: table function support
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-06-10 15:02:45 Re: \timing on/off