From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling) |
Date: | 2017-01-16 19:13:18 |
Message-ID: | 21924.1484593998@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> That worked quite well. So we have a few questions, before I clean this
> up:
> - For now the node is named 'Srf' both internally and in explain - not
> sure if we want to make that something longer/easier to understand for
> others? Proposals? TargetFunctionScan? SetResult?
"Srf" is ugly as can be, and unintelligible. SetResult might be OK.
> - I continued with the division of Labor that Tom had set up, so we're
> creating one Srf node for each "nested" set of SRFs. We'd discussed
> nearby to change that for one node/path for all nested SRFs, partially
> because of costing. But I don't like the idea that much anymore. The
> implementation seems cleaner (and probably faster) this way, and I
> don't think nested targetlist SRFs are something worth optimizing
> for. Anybody wants to argue differently?
Not me.
> Comments?
Hard to comment on your other points without a patch to look at.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-01-16 19:30:02 | Re: patch: function xmltable |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-16 19:10:24 | Re: check_srf_call_placement() isn't always setting p_hasTargetSRFs |