In gram.y
Typename: SimpleTypename opt_array_bounds
{
$$ = $1;
$$->arrayBounds = $2;
}
| SETOF SimpleTypename opt_array_bounds
{
$$ = $2;
$$->arrayBounds = $3;
$$->setof = TRUE;
}

Typename is a generic name of type and it used in many places in gram.c, but
AFAIK the single place with SETOF is a function's RETURNS declaration. So there
is many checks about SETOF. May I eliminate SETOF from Typename and leave it
only for RETURNS?



--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes:
> May I eliminate SETOF from Typename and leave it
> only for RETURNS?

Why do you want to?

I think the reason it's in Typename is the assumption that in future
we would try to extend the applicability of SETOF, not restrict it.
For instance I can see reasons for wanting SETOF on a function's input
parameter (to pass it a whole table or select result in one call).

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

> Why do you want to?

Just simplify.

> For instance I can see reasons for wanting SETOF on a function's input
> parameter (to pass it a whole table or select result in one call).

I see. But Typename is used for table's definition for example. I can't imagine
column "setof text".


--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes:
>> Why do you want to?

> Just simplify.

I think you'd just be moving the complexity somewhere else.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:04:11PM +0400, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> >Why do you want to?
>
> Just simplify.
>
> >For instance I can see reasons for wanting SETOF on a function's
> >input parameter (to pass it a whole table or select result in one
> >call).
>
> I see. But Typename is used for table's definition for example. I
> can't imagine column "setof text".

It's part of the SQL:2003 standard as MULTISET

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend