On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 08:56:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > > ... I propose merely changing the syntax to "TABLE FOR ROWS (...)". > > Ugh :-(. Verbose and not exactly intuitive, I think. I don't like > any of the other options you listed much better. Still, the idea of > using more than one word might get us out of the bind that a single > word would have to be a fully reserved one. > > > ROWS FROM > > This one's a little less awful than the rest. What about "ROWS OF"?
I had considered ROWS OF and liked it, but I omitted it from the list on account of the shift/reduce conflict from a naturally-written Bison rule. Distinguishing it from a list of column aliases takes extra look-ahead. We could force that to work. However, if we ever wish to allow an arbitrary from_item in the list, it would become ambiguous: is this drawing rows from "a" or just using an alias with a column list? WITH a AS (SELECT oid FROM pg_am ORDER BY 1) SELECT * FROM rows of(a, a); ROWS FOR is terse and conflict-free. "FOR" evokes the resemblance to looping over the parenthesized section with the functions acting as generators. -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
