Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 28537.1385000851@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs (Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>) |
| Ответы |
Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs
Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Tom> and this would result in producing the array elements as a table
> Tom> column. There is nothing in there about a function returning
> Tom> set.
> In the spec, there is no such thing as a function returning a set of
> rows in the sense that we use.
Right, but they do have a concept of arrays that's similar to ours,
and AFAICS the spec demands different behavior for an array-returning
function than what we've got here.
We could conceivably say that we'll implicitly UNNEST() if the function
returns array, and not otherwise --- but that seems pretty inconsistent
and surprise-making to me. I'm not too sure what to do if a function
returns setof array, either.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: