Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> That's how I read it, too. My hypothesis is that the standard adopted TABLE()
> to rubber-stamp Oracle's traditional name for UNNEST().
Hmm ... plausible.
> ... I propose merely changing the syntax to "TABLE FOR ROWS (...)".
Ugh :-(. Verbose and not exactly intuitive, I think. I don't like
any of the other options you listed much better. Still, the idea of
using more than one word might get us out of the bind that a single
word would have to be a fully reserved one.
> ROWS FROM
This one's a little less awful than the rest. What about "ROWS OF"?
regards, tom lane