Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19999.1484849180@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (wasChanged SRF in targetlist handling)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-01-18 16:56:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: >> I have not actually looked at 0003 at all yet. So yeah, please post >> for review after you're done rebasing. > Here's a rebased and lightly massaged version. I've read through this and made some minor improvements, mostly additional comment cleanup. One thing I wanted to ask about: @@ -4303,7 +4303,7 @@ inline_function(Oid funcid, Oid result_type, Oid result_collid, /* * Forget it if the function is not SQL-language or has other showstopper - * properties. (The nargs check is just paranoia.) + * properties. (The nargs and retset checks are just paranoia.) */ if (funcform->prolang != SQLlanguageId || funcform->prosecdef || I thought this change was simply wrong, and removed it; AFAIK it's perfectly possible to get here for set-returning functions, since the planner does expression simplification long before it worries about splitting out SRFs. Did you have a reason to think differently? Other than that possible point, I think the attached is committable. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: