On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 06:42 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> internally is table functions implemenation identical with SRF.
It's not the internals that I'm concerned about.
> Semantically is far - user's doesn't specify return type (what is from
> PostgreSQL), but specifies return table, what is more natural. What
> more - for users is transparent chaotic joice betwen "SETOF RECORD"
> for multicolumns sets and "SETOF type".
Well, I'd just like to see some thought about how this *entire* feature
ought to work, rather than just adding new knobs and syntax variants
incrementally and seemingly at random. Just because it happens to be in
the standard isn't really a compelling reason to make an overly-complex
part of the system even more complicated, IMHO...
-Neil