| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ronald Peterson <ron(at)yellowbank(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: extra function calls from query returning composite type |
| Date: | 2015-01-02 17:00:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0x69CFYnrcbf5qd03=iyTXTvyMQtCPjA4ZtPDvkZiGSJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Ronald Peterson <ron(at)hub(dot)yellowbank(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks much. Didn't know about LATERAL. That's a solution. Seems like the
> implementation could be improved though. The existence of LATERAL seems to
> imply that it's possible. Why introduce more complicated syntax? Of course
> the syntax applies to more situations than this one. But this case seems
> like it could be improved.
Well, LATERAL is SQL standard syntax, and the SQL standard expressly
forbids using 'lateral refrences' between table expressions (see here:
http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2010/04/finding-our-way-to-lateral.html for
some background info). As to why they did it, I don't know, but
there' probably some complicated reason where not having that syntax
broke or made ambiguous existing stuff. Given that, it's not likely
to change.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2015-01-02 19:37:45 | Re: partial "on-delete set null" constraint |
| Previous Message | Rafal Pietrak | 2015-01-02 16:55:30 | Re: partial "on-delete set null" constraint |