X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FBDA52E5D
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon,  1 Aug 2005 20:57:21 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 08461-05
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon,  1 Aug 2005 23:57:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007C452C4A
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Mon,  1 Aug 2005 20:57:14 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j71NvHZY026175;
	Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:57:17 -0400 (EDT)
To: Chris Mungall <cjm@fruitfly.org>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Calling SQL functions that return sets 
In-reply-to: <Pine.OSX.4.58.0508011438210.14023@skerryvore.dhcp.lbl.gov> 
References: <Pine.OSX.4.58.0508011438210.14023@skerryvore.dhcp.lbl.gov>
Comments: In-reply-to Chris Mungall <cjm@fruitfly.org>
	message dated "Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:43:52 -0700"
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:57:17 -0400
Message-ID: <26174.1122940637@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200508/7
X-Sequence-Number: 22235

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