From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Chris Mungall <cjm@fruitfly.org>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Calling SQL functions that return sets
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:57:17 -0400
Message-ID: <26174.1122940637@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSX.4.58.0508011438210.14023@skerryvore.dhcp.lbl.gov>
References: <Pine.OSX.4.58.0508011438210.14023@skerryvore.dhcp.lbl.gov>
Chris Mungall <cjm@fruitfly.org> writes:
> What are the reasons for deprecating the use of the function in the
> SELECT clause?
The semantics of having more than one set-returning function in the
target list are, um, poorly thought out. However, we haven't removed
the feature because (as you note) there are things you can't do any
other way.
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, cjm@fruitfly.org
Subject: Re: Calling SQL functions that return sets
In-Reply-To: <26174.1122940637@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