Re: Playing with set returning functions in SELECT list - behaviour intended? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Albe Laurenz
Subject Re: Playing with set returning functions in SELECT list - behaviour intended?
Date
Msg-id D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C202FF6659@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Playing with set returning functions in SELECT list - behaviour intended?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Playing with set returning functions in SELECT list - behaviour intended?
List pgsql-general
Tom Lane wrote:
> It's always been that way.  The lack of any obviously-sane way to
> handle multiple SRFs in a targetlist is exactly why the feature is
> looked on with disfavor.

It is clear that there is no really good way to handle this.

How about my last example that involved aggregate functions, where
I surprisingly got only one result row?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tuan Hoang Anh
Date:
Subject: Could not reattach to shared memory
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: Custom Fields Database Architecture