Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs

From: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, 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>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs
Date: 2013-08-20 06:22:57
Message-ID: 52130B41.7050008@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2013-08-20 08:13 keltezéssel, Pavel Stehule írta:
>
>
>
> 2013/8/20 David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org <mailto:david(at)fetter(dot)org>>
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 07:45:23PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > Harder maybe but it may still be cleaner in the long run.
> > >
> > > Overall, it's my intention here to remove as many as feasible of the old
> > >> reasons why one might use an SRF in the select list.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Indeed, it's a big nail in the coffin for SRFs-in-targetlist. Having
> > > WITH ORDINALITY and this feature, I would vote for removing
> > > SRF-in-targetlist and call the release PostgreSQL 10.0.
> > >
> >
> > Although I would to remove SRF from targetlist, I don't think so this hurry
> > strategy is good idea. We should to provide new functionality and old
> > functionality one year as minimum, and we should to announce so this
> > feature is deprecated
>
> We could do this in 9.3, but all it would be is an announcement, i.e.
> no code change of any nature.
>
> > - and maybe use a GUC for disabling, warning and deprecating.
>

To really ensure backward compatibility, this sentence should read as
"add a GUC for disabling *the* warning and deprecating." :->

As I said, I am such an agent provocateur.
Let this side track die and concentrate on the merits of the patch itself. :-)

>
> With utmost respect, I think the general idea of setting SQL grammar
> via GUC is a really bad one. When we've done so in the past, it's
> done more harm than good, and we should not repeat it.
>
>
> so as minumum is controlling warning via GUC, we should to help with identification of
> problematic queries.
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>
> > More, I would to see 9.4 release:).
>
> Same here! :)
>
> > x.4 are happy PostgreSQL releases :)
>
> Each one has been at least baseline happy for me since 7.1. Some have
> made me overjoyed, though.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
> --
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org <mailto:david(at)fetter(dot)org>> http://fetter.org/
> Phone: +1 415 235 3778 <tel:%2B1%20415%20235%203778> AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
> Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com>
> iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
> <http://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics>
>
> Remember to vote!
> Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
>
>

--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2013-08-20 06:28:26 Re: ereport documentation patch
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2013-08-20 06:13:04 Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs