Re: Review: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY

From: Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY
Date: 2013-07-29 08:31:11
Message-ID: 51F6284F.3080609@dalibo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 07/29/2013 09:56 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Unless LATERAL provides a way to do lock-step iteration through a pair
> (or more) of functions I don't think we can get rid of SRFs-in-FROM just
> yet.

I don't think anyone was arguing for that; we're talking about
deprecating SRFs-in-SELECT.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2013-07-29 08:32:49 Re: Review: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY
Previous Message Albe Laurenz 2013-07-29 08:11:38 Re: potential bug in error message in with clause