Tom Lane-2 wrote > We could conceivably say that we'll implicitly UNNEST() if the function > returns array, and not otherwise --- but that seems pretty inconsistent > and surprise-making to me.
The use-cases for putting a scalar array returning function call into a TABLE construct, and NOT wanting the array to be un-nested, are likely few and far between. Neither the inconsistency nor surprise-making are serious deal-breakers for me. And if we do go with the "screw the standard" approach then we should just state right now that we will never adhere to standard on "inconsistency grounds" and not even encourage others to make it work. If "TABLE( array_scalar_func() )" ends up only returning a single row then nothing can be done to make it unnest the array and conform with the syntax without breaking backward compatibility. I'd rather change "TABLE" to "FUNCTION" and leave the implementation of TABLE open for future standards-compliance - which maybe you do as well and just haven't carried that sentiment to your more recent responses David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/UNNEST-with-multiple-args-and-TABLE-with-multiple-funcs-tp5767280p5779518.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
