From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f) |
Date: | 2017-03-10 19:49:46 |
Message-ID: | 20170310194946.45yvbvuqz3f7b7ru@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-03-09 13:34:22 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> >> Wonder if we there's an argument to be made for implementing this
> >> roughly similarly to split_pathtarget_at_srf - instead of injecting a
> >> ProjectSet node we'd add a FunctionScan node below a Result node.
> >
> > Yeah, possibly. That would have the advantage of avoiding an ExecProject
> > step when the SRFs aren't buried, which would certainly be the expected
> > case.
> >
> > If you don't want to make ExecInitExpr responsible, then the planner would
> > have to do something like split_pathtarget_at_srf anyway to decompose the
> > expressions, no matter which executor representation we use.
>
> Did we do anything about this? Are we going to?
Working on a patch.
- Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-03-10 19:53:12 | Re: Need a builtin way to run all tests faster manner |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-03-10 19:43:52 | Re: Need a builtin way to run all tests faster manner |