From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Strict Set Returning Functions |
Date: | 2011-06-15 23:33:55 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTi=4ZJSHH4qA5-u3f7dHpCx_cCt2iA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>>> So a function that is both STRICT and SET RETURNING will return rows.
>
>>> Really? The case behaves as expected for me.
>
>> Seems that's the wrong question. Let me return to why I raised this:
>
>> Why does evaluate_function() specifically avoid returning NULL for a
>> set returning function?
>
> Because replacing the SRF call with a constant NULL would produce the
> wrong result, ie, a single row containing NULL, not zero rows.
OK, thanks.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-16 00:08:09 | Re: creating CHECK constraints as NOT VALID |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-15 23:32:29 | Re: creating CHECK constraints as NOT VALID |