| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch for LATERAL subqueries |
| Date: | 2012-09-01 04:43:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1571.1346474630@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This is just awesome. Anyways, I was looking around the docs for
> references to the old methodology of select list SRF function calls.
> This paragraph:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/xfunc-sql.html#XFUNC-SQL-FUNCTIONS-RETURNING-SET
> could probably use some enhancement describing best practices in a
> LATERAL world and more examples of dealing with set returning
> functions in general.
Done, thanks for the suggestion.
> I also noticed that the build in SRF page
> (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-srf.html) lies
> with the comment "This section describes functions that possibly
> return more than one row. Currently the only functions in this class
> are series generating functions" since at minimum we have 'unnest' so
> that page could use some wordsmithing as well.
Yeah, there's also some regexp-related SRFs, as well as a boatload of
built-in SRFs that are mainly meant to underlie views. I guess we could
try to force all of those into this page, but it doesn't really seem
like it'd be an improvement. I took out the claim that these were all
such functions, instead.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-09-01 04:46:52 | Re: Does the SQL standard actually define LATERAL anywhere? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-01 04:29:18 | Does the SQL standard actually define LATERAL anywhere? |