Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling
Date: 2016-05-23 20:17:55
Message-ID: 21497.1464034675@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> I would be in favor of rewriting it to a LATERAL, but that would not be
> backwards compatible entirely either IIUC.

It could be made so, I think, but it may be more trouble than it's worth;
see my previous message.

> I'll also note that, unless I missed something, we also have to consider
> that the capability to pipeline results is still only available in the
> target list.

Yes, we would definitely want to improve nodeFunctionscan.c to perform
better for ValuePerCall SRFs. But that has value independently of this.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-05-23 20:24:45 Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2016-05-23 20:17:15 Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling