Re: patch: function xmltable

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: patch: function xmltable
Date: 2017-01-25 22:43:22
Message-ID: CAFj8pRCrj1J6FejdgOCbWjH3U3ATGD_zUE6Q3k7ydkPWpHeGnA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2017-01-25 23:33 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>:

> On 2017-01-25 22:51:37 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > 2017-01-25 22:40 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>:
> > > > I afraid when I cannot to reuse a SRF infrastructure, I have to
> > > reimplement
> > > > it partially :( - mainly for usage in "ROWS FROM ()"
> > >
> >
> > The TableExpr implementation is based on SRF now. You and Alvaro propose
> > independent implementation like generic executor node. I am sceptic so
> > FunctionScan supports reading from generic executor node.
>
> Why would it need to?
>

Simply - due consistency with any other functions that can returns rows.

Maybe I don't understand to Alvaro proposal well - I have a XMLTABLE
function - TableExpr that looks like SRF function, has similar behave -
returns more rows, but should be significantly different implemented, and
should to have different limits - should not be used there and there ... It
is hard to see consistency there for me.

Regards

Pavel

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-01-25 22:49:29 Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-01-25 22:41:22 Re: pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superuser check