| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs |
| Date: | 2013-12-03 17:37:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAL9RQbJmcwWmse4ZzabaVu++Kg-Gbi4T8kkeqgktPKuQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013/12/3 Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> > After sleeping on it, your other suggestion of TABLE OF, or possibly
> > TABLE FROM, is starting to grow on me.
> >
> > Who else has an opinion?
>
> Alright, for my 2c, I like having this syntax include 'TABLE' simply
> because it's what folks coming from Oracle might be looking for.
> Following from that, to keep it distinct from the spec's notion of
> 'TABLE', my preference is 'TABLE FROM'. I don't particularly like
> 'TABLE OF', nor do I like the various 'ROWS' suggestions.
>
+1
Pavel
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-03 17:44:00 | Re: WITHIN GROUP patch |
| Previous Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2013-12-03 17:36:39 | Re: Time-Delayed Standbys |