Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:
> I've used this syntax before and got a surprising message back. I'd
> expect to be able to do the following:
> ARRAY((SELECT col1, col2 FROM (VALUES ('a',1), ('b',2)) x(col1,col2)));
> and get the following back {"(a,1)","(b,2)"}. So I think I'm with
> David.
I concur --- if we support something like this, the behavior should be
that you get an array of record. Pavel's proposal for a 2-D array seems
unworkably restrictive. And I certainly don't want to end up in a
situation where we return either a 2-D array or array of record
depending on whether the parser thinks the column data types match ...
regards, tom lane