Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist
Date: 2003-02-03 14:57:49
Message-ID: 3E3E836D.8030400@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
>
> This patch was objected to by Peter, IIRC, and I think I agree with him.
> We should look at whether we can't solve the problem via SQL99 features
> before pumping new life into that crufty old Berkeley syntax.

I know I haven't had time to absorb Peter's suggestions and comment, but I
think the current behavior is broken, and this patch should be applied anyway
(this was only yhe first half of my proposal -- i.e. prevent more than one
targetlist srf). The only reason I can think to not apply it, is if you think
we should completely disallow targetlist set returning functions as part of
moving to SQL99.

Joe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-02-03 15:16:42 Re: constraint defaults still print
Previous Message greg 2003-02-03 14:47:02 Re: PGP signing releases

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-02-03 15:17:44 Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-02-03 14:42:02 Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist