| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY |
| Date: | 2013-07-24 00:35:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAOuzzgqsbDwK9bvTLC+Gr2UY6POdFVr2c1VZabKm7idyi1VO-A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013, David Fetter wrote:
>
> Are you saying that there's stuff that if I don't put it in now will
> impede our ability to add this to FTs later?
>
I'm saying that it'd be a completely different implementation and that this
one would get in the way and essentially have to be ripped out.
No one is saying that this patch wouldn't work for the specific use-case
that it set out to meet, and maybe it's unfair for us to consider possible
use-cases beyond the patch's goal and the spec requirement, but that, IMO,
is also one of the things that makes PG great. MVCC isn't necessary and
isn't required by spec either.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2013-07-24 01:16:38 | Re: Review: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY |
| Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2013-07-23 23:47:24 | Failure to use generic plans (was: Re: Performance problem in PLPgSQL) |