On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:33:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> 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 <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
