From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: kes-kes@yandex.ru
cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: DOC not so clear
In-reply-to: <154747695538.22759.12913505368136831904@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
References: <154747695538.22759.12913505368136831904@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to =?utf-8?q?PG_Doc_comments_form?=
 <noreply@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:42:35 +0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <25973.1547482531.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:15:31 -0500
Message-ID: <25974.1547482531@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

=3D?utf-8?q?PG_Doc_comments_form?=3D <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/queries-table-expressions.html#Q=
UERIES-LATERAL

>> The resulting row(s) are joined as usual with the rows they were comput=
ed
>> from.

> Here is not so clear what 'joined as usual' mean.

Why not?


> Probably DOC should explicitly say that if LATERAL function return empty=
 set
> then current row is excluded from result set

That would be wrong for "LEFT JOIN LATERAL ...", so it does not seem
like an improvement.

			regards, tom lane