From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Aron Widforss <pgsql-general(at)antarkt(dot)is> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Multiple unnests in query |
Date: | 2017-11-13 01:51:01 |
Message-ID: | 5065.1510537861@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Aron Widforss <pgsql-general(at)antarkt(dot)is> writes:
> Is this first query expected behavior? If so, what is the rationale?
The short answer is "because it's always worked that way". You
might find the last half of section 37.4.8 illuminating:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/xfunc-sql.html#XFUNC-SQL-FUNCTIONS-RETURNING-SET
but if you're on a pre-v10 release, pay close attention to what it says
about the difference between v10 and pre-v10 behavior.
> I would have expected nine rows returned (as in my second example).
Your second example has approximately nothing to do with your first.
It has only one SRF in the SELECT list, so there's not much doubt
about what ought to happen.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-13 02:18:58 | Re: Postgres 10.1 fails to start: server did not start in time |
Previous Message | Aron Widforss | 2017-11-13 01:22:58 | Multiple unnests in query |