>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

 Tom> Anyway, after further thought I've come up with an approach
 Tom> that's purely a syntactic transformation and so less likely to
 Tom> cause surprise: let's say that if we have TABLE() with a single
 Tom> argument, and no coldeflist either inside or outside, then we
 Tom> implicitly insert UNNEST().  Otherwise not.

This seems ugly beyond belief.

Specifically, having TABLE(foo()) and TABLE(foo(),bar()) be radically
different constructs, and likewise  TABLE(foo()) and TABLE(foo() AS (...)),
strikes me as highly objectionable.

If there isn't a reasonable syntax alternative to TABLE(...) for the
multiple functions case, then frankly I think we should go ahead and
burn compatibility with a spec feature which appears to be of negative

Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to