Re: [GENERAL] Multiple unnests in query - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Multiple unnests in query
Date
Msg-id 5065.1510537861@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to [GENERAL] Multiple unnests in query  (Aron Widforss <pgsql-general@antarkt.is>)
List pgsql-general
Aron Widforss <pgsql-general@antarkt.is> writes:
> Is this first query expected behavior? If so, what is the rationale?

The short answer is "because it's always worked that way".  You
might find the last half of section 37.4.8 illuminating:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/xfunc-sql.html#XFUNC-SQL-FUNCTIONS-RETURNING-SET

but if you're on a pre-v10 release, pay close attention to what it says
about the difference between v10 and pre-v10 behavior.

> I would have expected nine rows returned (as in my second example).

Your second example has approximately nothing to do with your first.
It has only one SRF in the SELECT list, so there's not much doubt
about what ought to happen.
        regards, tom lane


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Aron Widforss
Date:
Subject: [GENERAL] Multiple unnests in query
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postgres 10.1 fails to start: server did not start in time