| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, John Hansen <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: unnest |
| Date: | 2004-11-29 18:01:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20000.1101751271@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> Problem is that a polymorphic SRF cannot (currently at least) both
> accept and return type anyarray.
Beyond that, would the proposed function really be SQL-compliant other
than this one point? I had the idea that UNNEST required some
fundamental changes (but I might be confusing it with something else).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2004-11-29 18:30:27 | Re: Documentation on PITR still scarce |
| Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2004-11-29 17:50:17 | Re: Status of server side Large Object support? |