2011/1/13 Alban Hertroys <dalroi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 13 Jan 2011, at 20:21, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >>> I'm not sure what you mean here, Postgres certainly _does_ support set-returning functions. Maybe you were referring to something in the particular context of the problem the OP is trying to solve? >>> >> >> The name of feature "SET RETURNED FUNC" doesn't mean so PostgreSQL >> supports SET type in ANSI SQL sense. > > > I think this is getting off topic, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here. That's probably partially due to your odd usage of the word "so" - I think you mean to use it as "that" (which it doesn't mean), and not as "because" (which its meaning is much closer to). > You might also want to elaborate a bit more so that people have enough context to work around your grammar ;) > > Anyway, are you saying: > 1. PostgreSQL doesn't support SRF's (It does though)? Or that, > 2. ANSI SQL doesn't support SRF's? Or that > 3. PostgreSQL's implementation of SRF's is not compatible with the ANSI SQL definition? > sorry, my English isn't good. A problem is in meaning of keyword "SET". ANSI SQL knows a datatype "SET". This datatype isn't supported by pg. A SRF functions are called table functions in ANSI SQL. But I can be messed Pavel > Or something entirely different? > > Alban Hertroys > > -- > If you can't see the forest for the trees, > cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest. > > > !DSPAM:1030,4d2f54a811877157859450! > > > -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
