From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: TODO item |
Date: | 2009-03-28 14:44:03 |
Message-ID: | 200903281444.n2SEi3S07174@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>
> >> The unnest() implementation is largely unrelated to the standard
> >> one, which is impossible to provide without LATERAL.
>
> Bruce> I removed the duplicate item; we can add more details about
> Bruce> what additional functionality we need once we get user
> Bruce> feedback.
>
> The missing functionality from the spec is:
>
> 1) select ... from foo, unnest(foo.bar); -- UNNEST is implicitly LATERAL
>
> 2) multiple arrays: select * from unnest(a,b);
>
> 3) expansion of composite arrays: unnest(a) should return as many
> columns as there are in the elements of a, not just one composite
> column
>
> 4) WITH ORDINALITY - adds a column to the result with the array index
>
> It's point (1) that's the killer - without it, unnest() is just a
> trivial shorthand for stuff that can be done anyway; it doesn't
> actually add any functionality.
OK, so what should the TODO wording be?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-03-28 15:18:20 | Re: TODO item |
Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2009-03-28 14:38:26 | Re: TODO item |