I wrote:
> The SQL 200x draft defines a new clause TABLE ( expression> ) as a possible , where the expression> is required to be a function call. At the end this just boils
> down to UNNEST, though. UNNEST is defined in terms of a hairy recursive
> join subquery with a LATERAL( ) around it. L
Tom Lane writes:
> > With sufficiently blurred vision one might even find SQL99's clause
> > ::=
> > UNNEST
> > applicable. Or maybe not.
>
> Hm. I'm not sure what UNNEST does, but now that you bring SQL99 into
> the picture, what about WITH? That might solve the prob
