Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRAL9RQbJmcwWmse4ZzabaVu++Kg-Gbi4T8kkeqgktPKuQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers



2013/12/3 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> After sleeping on it, your other suggestion of TABLE OF, or possibly
> TABLE FROM, is starting to grow on me.
>
> Who else has an opinion?

Alright, for my 2c, I like having this syntax include 'TABLE' simply
because it's what folks coming from Oracle might be looking for.
Following from that, to keep it distinct from the spec's notion of
'TABLE', my preference is 'TABLE FROM'.  I don't particularly like
'TABLE OF', nor do I like the various 'ROWS' suggestions.

+1

Pavel
 

        Thanks,

                Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Date:
Subject: Re: Time-Delayed Standbys
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: WITHIN GROUP patch