2008/6/10 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 13:03 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: >>> this patch add support of table functions syntax like ANSI SQL 2003. > >> I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I wonder if we really need >> *more* syntax variants for declaring set-returning functions. > > I've been saying right along that we don't. The proposed patch adds > no measurable new functionality; its only reason to live is standards > compliance, and I'm not convinced that's worth the confusion. Our > implementation of functions is (and always will be) far enough away > from the standard that notational issues like this are hardly the top > of the problem list for someone wishing to import a spec-compliant > function.
a) current syntax is strange for beginers (and I am sure - isn't nice) - look to mailing lists. I belive so ansi syntax is better. b) it's needed for well SQL/PSM support. With table functions and RETURN QUERY we are neer standard. > > (It's also worth asking where the import is coming from. Who implements > the spec syntax anyway? DB2 maybe, but when was the last time we heard > from anyone trying to migrate from DB2 to PG?) > lot of smaller new databases respect ANSI SQL 200x well - not only db2 > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
