From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, 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: | 2013-07-24 18:01:15 |
Message-ID: | 20130724180115.GE10713@alap2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-07-24 13:36:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> If it weren't that we've been speculating for years about deprecating
> >> SRFs-in-tlists once we had LATERAL, I would personally consider this
> >> patch DOA in this form.
>
> > I guess I'd sort of assumed that the plan was to continue accepting
> > SRFs in tlists but rewrite them as lateral joins, rather than getting
> > rid of them altogether.
>
> That seems to me to be unlikely to happen, because it would be
> impossible to preserve the current (admittedly bad) semantics.
> If we're going to change the behavior at all we might as well just
> drop the feature, IMO.
I think removing the feature will be a rather painful procedure for
users and thus will need a rather long deprecation period. The amount of
code using SRFs in targetlists is quite huge if my experience is
anything to go by.
And much of that can trivially/centrally be rewritten to LATERAL, not
to speak of the cross-version compatibility problem.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-07-24 18:08:32 | Re: [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-07-24 18:00:41 | Re: Review: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY |