Re: Playing with set returning functions in SELECT list - behaviour intended?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Playing with set returning functions in SELECT list - behaviour intended?
Date: 2009-06-17 14:53:22
Message-ID: 26500.1245250402@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:06:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's always been that way. The lack of any obviously-sane way to
>> handle multiple SRFs in a targetlist is exactly why the feature is
>> looked on with disfavor.

> I must be missing something obvious. Isn't the nested loop thing that
> happens with generate_series() pretty sane?

You've carefully chosen a case in which the LCM is also the product.
Try some other combinations of periods and see if you still think
it's sane.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tuan Hoang Anh 2009-06-17 14:55:15 Could not reattach to shared memory
Previous Message Todd A. Cook 2009-06-17 14:50:13 FYI: Load times for a largish DB in 8.2 vs. 8.3 vs. 8.4