| 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: | 2013-07-23 22:09:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAOuzzgrXd2-eEXgsLESNm33PA+BMgtiranT2bVZGn4eOrDQUBQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013, David Fetter wrote:
>
> There are a lot of ways foreign tables don't yet act like local ones.
> Much as I'm a booster for fixing that problem, I'm thinking
> improvements in this direction are for a separate patch.
>
This isn't about making FDWs more like local tables- indeed, quite the
opposite. The question is if we should declare that WITH ORDINALITY will
only ever be for SRFs or if we should consider that it might be useful with
FDWs specifically because they are not unordered sets as tables are.
Claiming that question is unrelated to the implementation of WITH
ORDINALITY is rather... Bizarre.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2013-07-23 22:21:16 | Re: Review: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2013-07-23 21:56:19 | Re: Review: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY |