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

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs
Date: 2013-12-03 15:03:32
Message-ID: 20131203150331.GI17272@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> After sleeping on it, your other suggestion of TABLE OF, or possibly
> TABLE FROM, is starting to grow on me.
>
> Who else has an opinion?

Alright, for my 2c, I like having this syntax include 'TABLE' simply
because it's what folks coming from Oracle might be looking for.
Following from that, to keep it distinct from the spec's notion of
'TABLE', my preference is 'TABLE FROM'. I don't particularly like
'TABLE OF', nor do I like the various 'ROWS' suggestions.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2013-12-03 15:06:39 Re: Extension Templates S03E11
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-12-03 14:57:10 Re: pgsql: Fix a couple of bugs in MultiXactId freezing