| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ROWS FROM(): A Foolish (In)Consistency? |
| Date: | 2015-10-20 14:52:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYcr=MBCJwcxdfx4f_NJf_x=2b-ff-Bs10gwNBKkN6tJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10/19/15 1:07 PM, David Fetter wrote:
>>
>> What I'd like to do is lift the restriction on ROWS FROM(), which
>> currently requires that the stuff inside the parentheses set-returning
>> functions, so constructs something like the following would actually work:
>>
>> SELECT *
>> FROM
>> ROWS FROM (
>> (VALUES (...), ..., (...)),
>> (SELECT ... ),
>> (INSERT ... RETURNING ... ),
>> my_srf()
>> )
>> AS t(...)
>>
>> would actually work.
>
>
> There's been a few places where I would have found that handy.
Why not just use a subquery with UNION ALL?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-10-20 14:58:24 | Re: Dangling Client Backend Process |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2015-10-20 14:51:38 | Re: Multi-column distinctness. |