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: