From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jann Röder <roederja@ethz.ch>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Table returning functions
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:58:58 -0400
Message-ID: <13671.1284940738@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <i764t8$clq$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <i683es$v8b$1@dough.gmane.org>
<i764t8$clq$1@dough.gmane.org>
=?UTF-8?B?SmFubiBSw7ZkZXI=?= <roederja@ethz.ch> writes:
> Ok I now know that it really seems to do what I expected. But I still
> wonder what it does if I use two functions f() and g() that return a
> different number of rows.
You get the least common multiple of their periods. It's ugly, and the
lack of any very sane way to define the behavior is the main argument
for deprecating SRFs in the targetlist.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, roederja@ethz.ch
Subject: Re: Table returning functions
In-Reply-To: <13671.1284940738@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox