2008/6/10 Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>:
> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 13:03 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> this patch add support of table functions syntax like ANSI SQL 2003.
>
> 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...
>
internally is table functions implemenation identical with SRF.
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".
Pavel
> -Neil
>
>
>