Re: Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause(Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause(Commit id: 69f4b9c85f) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20170405071625.uizj7x4q5lnyiwet@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id:69f4b9c85f) (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
Re: Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause(Commit id: 69f4b9c85f) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-04-05 02:47:55 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:49:46AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-03-09 13:34:22 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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. > > [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Andres, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a > v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of > this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed > well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts > toward speedy resolution. Thanks. I've a very preliminary patch. I'd like to only start polishing it up once the code freeze is over, so I can work on getting some patches in - note that I myself have no pending patches. Once frozen I'll polish it up and send that within a few days. Ok? - Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: