raf writes:
> does this mean that "select srf()" is no longer deprecated?
Well, it's got various issues --- in particular it's not real clear what
should happen if there's more than one SRF in a select list. It's
unlikely to go away though, especially not before we have an adequate
replacement.
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> this limit will be removed at 8.4
>
> in older version you have to use table notation like
>
> select * from srf()
>
> regards
> Pavel Stehule
hi,
that's funny. the 8.3 documentation i read said that in the
future you'd probably have to use "select * from srf
Hello
this limit will be removed at 8.4
in older version you have to use table notation like
select * from srf()
regards
Pavel Stehule
2009/2/10 Daniel Migowski :
> Hello dear PostgreSQL developers,
>
> I noticed the following strange behaviour with set-returning functions. If
> sets are allow
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:04:02AM +0100, Daniel Migowski wrote:
> SELECT y(); -- fails with:
when you return set, you should use:
select * from y();
select function() is additional feature of sql functions.
depesz
--
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/depesz / blog: http://www.depesz.com/
Hello dear PostgreSQL developers,
I noticed the following strange behaviour with set-returning functions.
If sets are allowed seems to depend on the language the function is
written in, what makes conpletely no sense to me. See the following
functions x() and y(). x() is written in 'sql' and w
