Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-09-12 13:26:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-09-12 12:10:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> I can't say that I like the proposed syntax much.
>>> Me neither. But I haven't really found a better approach. It seems
>>> kinda consistent to have ROWS FROM (... AS ()) change the picked out
>>> columns to 0, and just return the whole thing.
>> I just remembered that we allow zero-column composite types, which
>> makes this proposal formally ambiguous. So we really need a different
>> syntax. I'm not especially in love with the cast-to-record idea, but
>> it does dodge that problem.
> I kind of like ROWS FROM (... AS VALUE), that seems to confer the
> meaning quite well. As VALUE isn't a reserved keyword, that'd afaik only
> really work inside ROWS FROM() where AS is required.
Hm, wouldn't ... AS RECORD convey the meaning better?
(Although once you look at it that way, it's just a cast spelled in
an idiosyncratic fashion.)
regards, tom lane