From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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 15:43:28 |
Message-ID: | 20080612154328.GC30268@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 05:56:59PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 13:03 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > this patch add support of table functions syntax like ANSI SQL
> > 2003.
>
> 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.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-12 16:33:57 | Re: SQL: table function support |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-12 14:40:13 | Re: Better formatting of functions in pg_dump |