| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL: table function support |
| Date: | 2008-06-10 06:42:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1213080176.12454.5.camel@goldbach |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 06:42 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> internally is table functions implemenation identical with SRF.
It's not the internals that I'm concerned about.
> Semantically is far - user's doesn't specify return type (what is from
> PostgreSQL), but specifies return table, what is more natural. What
> more - for users is transparent chaotic joice betwen "SETOF RECORD"
> for multicolumns sets and "SETOF type".
Well, I'd just like to see some thought about how this *entire* feature
ought to work, rather than just adding new knobs and syntax variants
incrementally and seemingly at random. Just because it happens to be in
the standard isn't really a compelling reason to make an overly-complex
part of the system even more complicated, IMHO...
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-06-10 08:56:06 | Re: minor ts_type.h comment fix |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2008-06-10 05:32:48 | VACUUM Improvements - WIP Patch |