From: | Markus Schaber <schabi(at)logix-tt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostGIS Users Discussion <postgis-users(at)postgis(dot)refractions(dot)net>, PostgreSQL SQL List <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Problem using set-returning functions |
Date: | 2006-03-27 15:14:50 |
Message-ID: | 4428016A.7020006@logix-tt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Hi, Stephan,
Stephan Szabo wrote:
> It's an implementation detail. Some languages handle SRFs in a way that
> can be handled in the select list (SQL and C I think) and others do not
> (plpgsql).
Ah, that's an enlightening explanation, thanks.
> The latter will likely change at some point, although there are
> some confusing issues with SRFs in the select list as well, see the
> difference in behavior between:
>
> select generate_series(1,10), generate_series(1,5);
> vs
> select * from generate_series(1,10) g1, generate_series(1,5) g2;
I know that the SRF special semantics are ugly, and would vote for
adjacent tables to be implemented as replacement.
Markus
--
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS
Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-27 15:48:30 | Re: Problem using set-returning functions |
Previous Message | PFC | 2006-03-27 15:12:49 | Re: Expressing a result set as an array (and vice versa)? |