>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
Tom> Anyway, after further thought I've come up with an approach Tom> that's purely a syntactic transformation and so less likely to Tom> cause surprise: let's say that if we have TABLE() with a single Tom> argument, and no coldeflist either inside or outside, then we Tom> implicitly insert UNNEST(). Otherwise not. This seems ugly beyond belief. Specifically, having TABLE(foo()) and TABLE(foo(),bar()) be radically different constructs, and likewise TABLE(foo()) and TABLE(foo() AS (...)), strikes me as highly objectionable. If there isn't a reasonable syntax alternative to TABLE(...) for the multiple functions case, then frankly I think we should go ahead and burn compatibility with a spec feature which appears to be of negative value. -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
