Re: polymorphic table functions light

Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 16/12/2019 22:13, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That being the case, I'm not in favor of using up SQL syntax space for it
>> if we don't have to.

> Do I understand correctly that you are advocating *against* using
> standard SQL syntax for a feature that is defined by the SQL Standard
> and that we have no similar implementation for?

My point is that what Peter is proposing is exactly *not* the standard's
feature.  We generally avoid using up standard syntax for not-standard
semantics, especially if there's any chance that somebody might come along
and build a more-conformant version later.  (Having said that, I had the
impression that what he was proposing wasn't the standard's syntax either,
but just a homegrown CREATE FUNCTION addition.  I don't really see the
point of doing it like that when we can do it below the level of SQL.)

            regards, tom lane