Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (wasChanged SRF in targetlist handling)
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (wasChanged SRF in targetlist handling) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20170116151746.smipap4c6pcxn24e@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (wasChanged SRF in targetlist handling) (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (wasChanged SRF in targetlist handling)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund wrote: > That worked quite well. So we have a few questions, before I clean this > up: > > - For now the node is named 'Srf' both internally and in explain - not > sure if we want to make that something longer/easier to understand for > others? Proposals? TargetFunctionScan? SetResult? > > - We could alternatively add all this into the Result node - it's not > actually a lot of new code, and most of that is boilerplate stuff > about adding a new node. I'm ok with both. Hmm. I wonder if your stuff could be used as support code for XMLTABLE[1]. Currently it has a bit of additional code of its own, though admittedly it's very little code executor-side. Would you mind sharing a patch, or more details on how it works? [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRA_KEukOBXvS4V-imoEEsXu0pD0AsHV0-MwRFDRWte8Lg@mail.gmail.com > - I continued with the division of Labor that Tom had set up, so we're > creating one Srf node for each "nested" set of SRFs. We'd discussed > nearby to change that for one node/path for all nested SRFs, partially > because of costing. But I don't like the idea that much anymore. The > implementation seems cleaner (and probably faster) this way, and I > don't think nested targetlist SRFs are something worth optimizing > for. Anybody wants to argue differently? Nested targetlist SRFs make my head spin. I suppose they may have some use, but where would you really want this: alvherre=# select generate_series(1, generate_series(2, 4));generate_series ───────────────── 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 (9 filas) instead of the much more sensible alvherre=# select i, j from generate_series(2, 4) i, generate_series(1, i) j;i │ j ───┼───2 │ 12 │ 23 │ 13 │ 23 │ 34 │ 14 │ 24 │ 34 │ 4 (9 filas) ? If supporting the former makes it harder to support/optimize more reasonable cases, it seems fair game to leave them behind. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: