Re: Playing with set returning functions in SELECT list - behaviour intended?

From: "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
To: "Tom Lane *EXTERN*" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Playing with set returning functions in SELECT list - behaviour intended?
Date: 2009-06-17 14:56:14
Message-ID: D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C202FF6659@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Tom Lane wrote:
> It's always been that way. The lack of any obviously-sane way to
> handle multiple SRFs in a targetlist is exactly why the feature is
> looked on with disfavor.

It is clear that there is no really good way to handle this.

How about my last example that involved aggregate functions, where
I surprisingly got only one result row?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2009-06-17 14:58:27 Re: Custom Fields Database Architecture
Previous Message Tuan Hoang Anh 2009-06-17 14:55:15 Could not reattach to shared memory