| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Viliam Ďurina <viliam(dot)durina(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unexpected zero results |
| Date: | 2022-03-23 22:57:56 |
| Message-ID: | 2886427.1648076276@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:10 AM Viliam Ďurina <viliam(dot)durina(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> Now I'm surprised that a set-returning function is even allowed in SELECT
>> clause where the values have to be scalar.
> AFAIK the lateral construct, which is required to avoid doing just this, is
> a relatively recent invention for SQL. I infer from that fact that the
> ability to execute a set-returning function in the select clause has always
> been allowed.
I believe that Postgres' handling of that is actually a hangover
from Berkeley's PostQUEL language. Dunno what the SQL standard has
to say on the subject --- but it wouldn't surprise me if they don't
allow it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2022-03-24 10:02:01 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-03-23 22:51:40 | Re: Unexpected zero results |