Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers