| From: | Antonin Houska <antonin(dot)houska(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: parameterized function scan |
| Date: | 2012-06-07 23:04:53 |
| Message-ID: | 4FD13395.2010608@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/24/2012 12:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, it's not per spec: what you did accepts queries that are invalid
> per spec and are very likely to be errors rather than intentional
> invocations of the LATERAL facility. This might be all right for
>
I think I saw queries where function is joined with no explicit LATERAL().
Nevertheless...
> Quite honestly, I think that something that only handles functions as
> LATERAL righthands is broken by design. It doesn't meet the spec, and
> it's unlikely to represent much of a step towards a full implementation.
> Remember Polya's Inventor's Paradox: the more general problem may be
> easier to solve.
... sounds more serious. I'll keep it in mind if I get the impression
that I have a new idea about this problem anytime. Thanks,
Tony H.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2012-06-07 23:09:01 | Re: New Postgres committer: Kevin Grittner |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-06-07 23:04:17 | Re: New Postgres committer: Kevin Grittner |