Re: LATERAL, UNNEST and spec compliance

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:12:41PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:51:46AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > Andrew Gierth asked me to send this out as his email is in a parlous
> > state at the moment.  My comments will follow in replies.  Without
> > further ado:
> > [snip]
> >
> > As I see it, the current options are:
> >
> > 1. Do nothing, and insist on non-standard use of the LATERAL keyword.
> >
> > 2. Add UNNEST to the grammar (or parse analysis) as a special case, making
> >    it implicitly LATERAL.
> >
> >    (This would make implementing S301 easier, but special cases are ugly.)
> >
> > 3. Make all cases of SRFs in the FROM-clause implicitly LATERAL.
> >
> >    (As far as I can tell, those cases whose behaviour would be changed by
> >    this actually produce errors in versions prior to 9.3, so no working
> >    code should be affected.)
> >
> > Since LATERAL is new in 9.3, I think the pros and cons of these choices
> > should be considered now, rather than being allowed to slide by unexamined.
>
> Please find attached a patch which implements approach 3.  The vast
> majority of it is changes to the regression tests.  The removed
> regression tests in join.{sql,out} are no longer errors, although some
> of them are pretty standard DoS attacks, hence they're all removed.
>
> Cheers,
> David.

Oops.  Misspelled rtekind in the previous patch.  Here's a corrected
one, much shorter.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate