| From: | Alban Hertroys <dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jon Smark <jon(dot)smark(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Record with a field consisting of table rows |
| Date: | 2011-01-13 19:38:10 |
| Message-ID: | D2D94C49-15BD-40D8-8107-6307608F145C@solfertje.student.utwente.nl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 13 Jan 2011, at 20:21, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you mean here, Postgres certainly _does_ support set-returning functions. Maybe you were referring to something in the particular context of the problem the OP is trying to solve?
>>
>
> The name of feature "SET RETURNED FUNC" doesn't mean so PostgreSQL
> supports SET type in ANSI SQL sense.
I think this is getting off topic, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here. That's probably partially due to your odd usage of the word "so" - I think you mean to use it as "that" (which it doesn't mean), and not as "because" (which its meaning is much closer to).
You might also want to elaborate a bit more so that people have enough context to work around your grammar ;)
Anyway, are you saying:
1. PostgreSQL doesn't support SRF's (It does though)? Or that,
2. ANSI SQL doesn't support SRF's? Or that
3. PostgreSQL's implementation of SRF's is not compatible with the ANSI SQL definition?
Or something entirely different?
Alban Hertroys
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest.
!DSPAM:737,4d2f54ac11871133719602!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-01-13 19:58:40 | Re: Record with a field consisting of table rows |
| Previous Message | Alban Hertroys | 2011-01-13 19:21:30 | Re: Record with a field consisting of table rows |