Hi, On 2017-01-18 15:24:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > Yea, have something lying around. Let me push it then when I get back from > > lunch? > > Sure, no sweat.
Pushed. Yay! There's one sgml comment you'd added: "Furthermore, nested set-returning functions did not work at all." I'm not quite sure what you're referring to there - it was previously allowed to have one set argument to an SRF: postgres[28758][1]=# SELECT generate_series(1,generate_series(1,5)); ┌─────────────────┐ │ generate_series │ ├─────────────────┤ │ 1 │ │ 1 │ │ 2 │ │ 1 │ │ 2 │ │ 3 │ Am I misunderstanding what you meant? I left it in what I committed, but we probably should clear up the language there. Working on rebasing the cleanup patch now. Interested in reviewing that? Otherwise I think I'll just push the rebased version of what I'd posted before, after making another pass through it. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
