Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> That's how I read it, too.  My hypothesis is that the standard adopted TABLE()
> to rubber-stamp Oracle's traditional name for UNNEST().

Hmm ... plausible.

> ... I propose merely changing the syntax to "TABLE FOR ROWS (...)".

Ugh :-(.  Verbose and not exactly intuitive, I think.  I don't like
any of the other options you listed much better.  Still, the idea of
using more than one word might get us out of the bind that a single
word would have to be a fully reserved one.

> ROWS FROM

This one's a little less awful than the rest.  What about "ROWS OF"?
        regards, tom lane