On Tue, April 6, 2010 21:42, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> While I understand why this is confusing, it's really very normal
>> behavior for a SRF, and I don't really think it makes sense to
>> document that this SRF behaves just like other SRFs...
>
> It's likely to be used by people who do not otherwis
> While I understand why this is confusing, it's really very normal
> behavior for a SRF, and I don't really think it makes sense to
> document that this SRF behaves just like other SRFs...
It's likely to be used by people who do not otherwise use SRFs, and many
would not be prepared for the cons
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 4/5/10 9:16 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> I can't see how this is anything but a bug; as far as I know, nothing in
>> the target list is allowed to restrict the number of rows which are
>> returned by the query. We should get 7 rows, 3 of whic
On 4/5/10 9:16 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I can't see how this is anything but a bug; as far as I know, nothing in
> the target list is allowed to restrict the number of rows which are
> returned by the query. We should get 7 rows, 3 of which have an empty
> array or a NULL in the 2nd column.
Just
