From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Missing array support |
Date: | 2003-07-01 02:32:44 |
Message-ID: | 3F00F2CC.50501@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>* Using an array as a table source using UNNEST, something like:
>>>
>>>select * from unnest(test.b);
>>>(Check the exact spec to be sure; clause 7.6.)
>>
>>select * from unnest(array['a','b']);
>>?column?
>>----------
>> a
>> b
>>
>>select * from unnest(array['a','b']) WITH ORDINALITY;
>> ?column? | ?column?
>>----------+----------
>> 1 | a
>> 2 | b
>
>>select * from unnest(array['a','b']) as t(f1, f2) WITH ORDINALITY;
>> f1 | f2
>>----+----
>> 1 | a
>> 2 | b
>
> The WITH ORDINALITY goes before the AS clause.
>
> The reason it is defined in terms of the LATERAL clause is that that
> allows you to refer to column aliases defined in FROM items to its left.
> This is the way variable arguments of function calls as table sources can
> be resolved. (At least this is my interpretation. I found some examples
> on the web a few months ago about this.)
>
If I can get this done *without* supporting LATERAL by the end of the
evening (i.e. just implement the examples), would it possibly be
accepted? Or should UNNEST wait until we get LATERAL?
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jon Jensen | 2003-07-01 02:45:47 | sslmode patch |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-07-01 02:15:29 | Re: Missing array support |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jon Jensen | 2003-07-01 02:45:47 | sslmode patch |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-07-01 02:15:29 | Re: Missing array support |