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 20:15:13 |
Message-ID: | 20131203201513.GR17272@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:
> Another issue is that if you are used to the Oracle syntax, in which an
> UNNEST() is presumed, it's not exactly clear that TABLE ROWS, or any other
> phrase including TABLE, *doesn't* also imply an UNNEST. So to me that's
> kind of a strike against Stephen's preference --- I'm thinking we might be
> better off not using the word TABLE.
I see the concern there, but I would think a bit of documentation around
that would help them find UNNEST quickly, if that's what they're really
looking for. On the flip side, I imagine it could be jarring seeing
'TABLE FROM' when you're used to Oracle's 'TABLE'.
I haven't got any great suggestions about how to incorporate 'SET' and I
I do still like 'TABLE' as that's what we're building, but I'll be happy
to have this capability even if it's 'TABLE FROM SET ROWS THING'.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-12-03 20:19:26 | Re: logical changeset generation v6.7 |
Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2013-12-03 20:15:08 | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |