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.
Perhaps, but I can see explaining it to my over-busy-non-doc-reading developers much more easily than the existing choices. Of course then they will all want to write set returning functions, so I may end up regretting it. -dg -- David Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510 536 1443 510 282 0869 If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects. -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
