| 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: Changed SRF in targetlist handling |
| Date: | 2016-05-25 20:55:23 |
| Message-ID: | 9787.1464209723@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:
> On 2016-05-25 15:20:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We could certainly make a variant behavior in nodeFunctionscan.c that
>> emulates that, if we feel that being exactly bug-compatible on the point
>> is actually what we want. I'm dubious about that though, not least
>> because I don't think *anyone* actually believes that that behavior isn't
>> broken. Did you read my upthread message suggesting assorted compromise
>> choices?
> You mean https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/21076.1464034513@sss.pgh.pa.us ?
> If so, yes.
> If we go with rewriting this into LATERAL, I'd vote for 2.5 (trailed by
> option 1), that'd keep most of the functionality, and would break
> visibly rather than invisibly in the cases where not.
2.5 would be okay with me.
> I guess you're not planning to work on this?
Well, not right now, as it's clearly too late for 9.6. I might hack on
it later if nobody beats me to it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-25 21:24:22 | Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-25 20:32:57 | Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling |