| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling) |
| Date: | 2017-01-16 21:00:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20170116210019.a3glfwspg5lnfrnm@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-01-16 16:04:34 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-01-16 12:17:46 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Hmm. I wonder if your stuff could be used as support code for
> > > XMLTABLE[1].
> >
> > I don't immediately see what functionality overlaps, could you expand on
> > that?
>
> Well, I haven't read any previous patches in this area, but the xmltable
> patch adds a new way of handling set-returning expressions, so it
> appears vaguely related.
Ugh. That's not good - I'm about to remove isDone. Like completely.
That's why I'm actually working on all this, because random expressions
returning more rows makes optimizing expression evaluation a lot harder.
> These aren't properly functions in the current sense of the word,
> though.
Why aren't they? Looks like it'd be doable to do so, at least below the
parser level?
Regards,
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-01-16 21:01:07 | Re: check_srf_call_placement() isn't always setting p_hasTargetSRFs |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-01-16 20:52:14 | Re: Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling) |