On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:33:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 05:56:59PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote: > >> I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I wonder if we really > >> need *more* syntax variants for declaring set-returning > >> functions. The existing patchwork of features is confusing enough > >> as it is... > > > The way we declare set-returning functions ranges from odd to > > byzantine. A clear, easy-to-understand syntax (even if it's just > > sugar over something else) like Pavel's would go a long way toward > > getting developers actually to use them. > > Apparently, whether the syntax is byzantine or not is in the eye of > the beholder. I find the TABLE() syntax to be *less* clear.
I went and got reports from the field. Over the years, I've had to explain at great length and with no certain success to developers at a dozen different companies how to use OUT parameters. RETURNS TABLE(...) is *much* more intuitive to those people, who have a tendency to do things like create temp tables rather than figure out the OUT parameter syntax afresh. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
