| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling |
| Date: | 2016-05-23 20:24:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20160523202445.GA402582@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> > I'll also note that, unless I missed something, we also have to consider
> > that the capability to pipeline results is still only available in the
> > target list.
>
> Yes, we would definitely want to improve nodeFunctionscan.c to perform
> better for ValuePerCall SRFs. But that has value independently of this.
Ah, so that's what "pipeline results" mean! I hadn't gotten that. I
agree; Abhijit had a patch or a plan for this, a long time ago ...
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-05-23 20:32:07 | Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-23 20:17:55 | Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling |