Re: SQL: table function support

David Fetter <david@fetter.org> 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