Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs
Date: 2013-11-22 18:05:30
Message-ID: 8761rkuy4x.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

Tom> [ I assume you forgot a create type footype here ]

yeah, sorry

Tom> Well, it's not insane on its face. The rowtype of f in the
Tom> first example is necessarily a built-on-the-fly record, but in
Tom> the second case using the properties of the underlying named
Tom> composite type is possible, and consistent with what happens in
Tom> 9.3 and earlier. (Not that I'm claiming we were or are totally
Tom> consistent ...)

Right, but your changes to the code make it look like there was an
intended change there - with the scan type tupdesc being forced to
RECORD type and its column names changed.

--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2013-11-22 18:19:55 Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block
Previous Message Michael Meskes 2013-11-22 17:41:47 Re: Building on S390