Andres Freund <> writes:
> 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:

Ooops ... that was composed too hastily, evidently.  Will fix.

I'll try to write something about the SRF-in-CASE issue too.  Seeing
whether we can document that adequately seems like an important part
of making the decision about whether we need to block it.

> 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.

I have not actually looked at 0003 at all yet.  So yeah, please post
for review after you're done rebasing.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to