Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > ... I guess I'd prefer #2 to #2.5, #2.5 to #3, and #3 to #1.
> > I really don't like #1 much - I think I'd almost rather do nothing.
>
> FWIW, that's about my evaluation of the alternatives as well. I fear
> that #1 would get a lot of pushback. If we think that something like
> "LATERAL ROWS FROM STRICT" is worth having on its own merits, then
> doing #2.5 seems worthwhile to me, but otherwise I'm just as happy
> with #2. David J. seems to feel that throwing an error (as in #2.5)
> rather than silently behaving incompatibly (as in #2) is important,
> but I'm not convinced. In a green field I think we'd prefer #2 over
> #2.5, so I'd rather go that direction.
>

​I suspect the decision to error or not is a one or two line change in
whatever form the final patch takes. It seems like approach #2 is
acceptable on a theoretical level which implies there is no desire to make
the existing LCM behavior available post-patch.

Assuming it is simple then everyone will have a chance to make their
opinion known on whether the 2.0 or 2.5 variation is preferable for the
final commit. If a decision needs to be made sooner due to a design
decision I'd hope the author of the patch would make that known so we can
bring this to resolution at that point instead.

David J.