Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwYWPLLPOE=_e_1Pe8a3K=HL_A+mhEbdMdNHU=GzSD=t+Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> ... I guess I'd prefer #2 to #2.5, #2.5 to #3, and #3 to #1.
> I really don't like #1 much - I think I'd almost rather do nothing.
FWIW, that's about my evaluation of the alternatives as well. I fear
that #1 would get a lot of pushback. If we think that something like
"LATERAL ROWS FROM STRICT" is worth having on its own merits, then
doing #2.5 seems worthwhile to me, but otherwise I'm just as happy
with #2. David J. seems to feel that throwing an error (as in #2.5)
rather than silently behaving incompatibly (as in #2) is important,
but I'm not convinced. In a green field I think we'd prefer #2 over
#2.5, so I'd rather go that direction.
I suspect the decision to error or not is a one or two line change in whatever form the final patch takes. It seems like approach #2 is acceptable on a theoretical level which implies there is no desire to make the existing LCM behavior available post-patch.
Assuming it is simple then everyone will have a chance to make their opinion known on whether the 2.0 or 2.5 variation is preferable for the final commit. If a decision needs to be made sooner due to a design decision I'd hope the author of the patch would make that known so we can bring this to resolution at that point instead.
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: