From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist |
Date: | 2003-02-03 15:17:44 |
Message-ID: | 15010.1044285464@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> The only reason I can think to not apply it, is if you think
> we should completely disallow targetlist set returning functions as part of
> moving to SQL99.
I would like to eventually get rid of targetlist SRF's altogether.
I believe the feature represents a nontrivial drag on executor
performance and reliability even when it's not being used. (Look at all
the isDone cruft in execQual, the TupFromTlist hoop-jumping, the places
that are missing TupFromTlist hoop-jumping and should have it, etc.)
Obviously we can't do that until we have a fully functional alternative,
which FROM-list SRF's aren't. But if there is a chance of getting rid
of them via SQL99 extensions then I'd like to pursue that direction.
In the meantime, I don't see any need to spend any effort on cleaning up
what we're likely to discard altogether later...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-02-03 15:51:11 | new procedural language - PL/R |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-02-03 15:16:42 | Re: constraint defaults still print |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-02-03 15:23:28 | Re: SEQUENCEs and NO MAXVALUE NO MINVALUE |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-02-03 14:57:49 | Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist |