* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Another issue is that if you are used to the Oracle syntax, in which an
> UNNEST() is presumed, it's not exactly clear that TABLE ROWS, or any other
> phrase including TABLE, *doesn't* also imply an UNNEST. So to me that's
> kind of a strike against Stephen's preference --- I'm thinking we might be
> better off not using the word TABLE.
I see the concern there, but I would think a bit of documentation around
that would help them find UNNEST quickly, if that's what they're really
looking for. On the flip side, I imagine it could be jarring seeing
'TABLE FROM' when you're used to Oracle's 'TABLE'.
I haven't got any great suggestions about how to incorporate 'SET' and I
I do still like 'TABLE' as that's what we're building, but I'll be happy
to have this capability even if it's 'TABLE FROM SET ROWS THING'.
Thanks,
Stephen