| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY |
| Date: | 2013-07-23 21:23:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20130723212317.GH15510@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Greg Stark (stark(at)mit(dot)edu) wrote:
> So given that WITH ORDINALITY is really only useful for UNNEST and we
> can generalize it to all SRFs on the basis that Postgres SRFs do
> produce ordered sets not unordered relations it isn't crazy for the
> work to be in the Function node.
I agree, it isn't *crazy*. :)
> Now that I've written that though it occurs to me to wonder whether
> FDW tables might be usefully said to be ordered too though?
My thought around this was a VALUES() construct, but FDWs are an
interesting case to consider also; with FDWs it's possible that
something is said in SQL/MED regarding this question- perhaps it would
make sense to look there?
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-07-23 21:42:59 | Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]) |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2013-07-23 21:11:40 | Re: Review: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY |