Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Joe Conway
Subject Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist
Date
Msg-id 3E3E836D.8030400@joeconway.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>>Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
>
> This patch was objected to by Peter, IIRC, and I think I agree with him.
> We should look at whether we can't solve the problem via SQL99 features
> before pumping new life into that crufty old Berkeley syntax.

I know I haven't had time to absorb Peter's suggestions and comment, but I
think the current behavior is broken, and this patch should be applied anyway
(this was only yhe first half of my proposal -- i.e. prevent more than one
targetlist srf). The only reason I can think to not apply it, is if you think
we should completely disallow targetlist set returning functions as part of
moving to SQL99.

Joe



pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist