From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 20:42:46 |
Message-ID: | 22375.1464036166@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> 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 ...
> Is this sidebar strictly an implementation detail, not user visible?
Hmm. It could be visible in the sense that the execution of multiple
functions in one ROWS FROM() construct could be interleaved, while
(I think) the current implementation runs each one to completion
serially. But if you're writing code that assumes that, I think you
should not be very surprised when we break it. In any case, that
would not affect the proposed translation for SRFs-in-tlist, since
those have that behavior today.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-05-23 20:43:49 | Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14153: Unrecognized node type error when upsert is present in recursive CTE |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-23 20:37:28 | Re: Calling json_* functions with JSONB data |