Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> There's one sgml comment you'd added:
> "Furthermore, nested set-returning functions did not work at all."
> I'm not quite sure what you're referring to there - it was previously
> allowed to have one set argument to an SRF:
Ooops ... that was composed too hastily, evidently. Will fix.
I'll try to write something about the SRF-in-CASE issue too. Seeing
whether we can document that adequately seems like an important part
of making the decision about whether we need to block it.
> Working on rebasing the cleanup patch now. Interested in reviewing
> that? Otherwise I think I'll just push the rebased version of what I'd
> posted before, after making another pass through it.
I have not actually looked at 0003 at all yet. So yeah, please post
for review after you're done rebasing.
regards, tom lane