| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist |
| Date: | 2003-02-03 14:57:49 |
| Message-ID: | 3E3E836D.8030400@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
>
> This patch was objected to by Peter, IIRC, and I think I agree with him.
> We should look at whether we can't solve the problem via SQL99 features
> before pumping new life into that crufty old Berkeley syntax.
I know I haven't had time to absorb Peter's suggestions and comment, but I
think the current behavior is broken, and this patch should be applied anyway
(this was only yhe first half of my proposal -- i.e. prevent more than one
targetlist srf). The only reason I can think to not apply it, is if you think
we should completely disallow targetlist set returning functions as part of
moving to SQL99.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-02-03 15:16:42 | Re: constraint defaults still print |
| Previous Message | greg | 2003-02-03 14:47:02 | Re: PGP signing releases |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-03 15:17:44 | Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-03 14:42:02 | Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist |