From: Jann Röder <roederja@ethz.ch>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Table returning functions
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:43:26 +0200
Message-ID: <i773au$5e4$1@dough.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13671.1284940738@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <i683es$v8b$1@dough.gmane.org>
<i764t8$clq$1@dough.gmane.org>
<13671.1284940738@sss.pgh.pa.us>
True,
but it still allowed me to write queries that I do not know how to
express otherwise.
Am 20.09.10 01:58, schrieb Tom Lane:
> =?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: roederja@ethz.ch
Subject: Re: Table returning functions
In-Reply-To: <i773au$5e4$1@dough.gmane.org>
* 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