| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 20:17:55 |
| Message-ID: | 21497.1464034675@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> I would be in favor of rewriting it to a LATERAL, but that would not be
> backwards compatible entirely either IIUC.
It could be made so, I think, but it may be more trouble than it's worth;
see my previous message.
> 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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-05-23 20:24:45 | Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-05-23 20:17:15 | Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling |