Re: SQL: table function support
Tom Lane <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.patches |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
David Fetter <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 05:56:59PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote: >> 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. Apparently, whether the syntax is byzantine or not is in the eye of the beholder. I find the TABLE() syntax to be *less* clear. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches