| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY |
| Date: | 2013-07-24 17:36:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1663.1374687399@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If it weren't that we've been speculating for years about deprecating
>> SRFs-in-tlists once we had LATERAL, I would personally consider this
>> patch DOA in this form.
> I guess I'd sort of assumed that the plan was to continue accepting
> SRFs in tlists but rewrite them as lateral joins, rather than getting
> rid of them altogether.
That seems to me to be unlikely to happen, because it would be
impossible to preserve the current (admittedly bad) semantics.
If we're going to change the behavior at all we might as well just
drop the feature, IMO.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-24 17:39:35 | Re: Review: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-24 17:31:50 | Re: Review: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY |