2011/1/13 Alban Hertroys <dalroi@solfertje.student.utwente.nl>:
> On 13 Jan 2011, at 20:21, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean here, Postgres certainly _does_ support set-returning functions. Maybe you were
referringto something in the particular context of the problem the OP is trying to solve?
>>>
>>
>> The name of feature "SET RETURNED FUNC" doesn't mean so PostgreSQL
>> supports SET type in ANSI SQL sense.
>
>
> I think this is getting off topic, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here. That's probably partially
dueto your odd usage of the word "so" - I think you mean to use it as "that" (which it doesn't mean), and not as
"because"(which its meaning is much closer to).
> You might also want to elaborate a bit more so that people have enough context to work around your grammar ;)
>
> Anyway, are you saying:
> 1. PostgreSQL doesn't support SRF's (It does though)? Or that,
> 2. ANSI SQL doesn't support SRF's? Or that
> 3. PostgreSQL's implementation of SRF's is not compatible with the ANSI SQL definition?
>
sorry, my English isn't good. A problem is in meaning of keyword
"SET". ANSI SQL knows a datatype "SET". This datatype isn't supported
by pg. A SRF functions are called table functions in ANSI SQL. But I
can be messed
Pavel
> Or something entirely different?
>
> Alban Hertroys
>
> --
> If you can't see the forest for the trees,
> cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest.
>
>
> !DSPAM:1030,4d2f54a811877157859450!
>
>
>
