From: Regina Obe <lr@pcorp.us>
To: 'Merlin Moncure' <mmoncure@gmail.com>
To: 'Tom Lane' <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: 'PostgreSQL-development' <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 behavior change with set returning (funct).*
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:29:17 -0400
Message-ID: <001901d1855b$d1efd910$75cf8b30$@pcorp.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHyXU0zeaHigirhGXk5Go-=riu+ZSuiSa_kyLpgEaorSM8iAFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <001201d18524$f84c4580$e8e4d080$@pcorp.us>
<9987.1458754648@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAHyXU0zeaHigirhGXk5Go-=riu+ZSuiSa_kyLpgEaorSM8iAFg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
> I'm something of a backwards compatibility zealot, but I've become one for very good reasons. Personally, I'd rather we'd define precisely the usages that are deprecated (I guess SRF-tlist in the presence of
> FROM) and force them to error out with an appropriate HINT rather than give a different answer than they used to. The problem here is that LATERAL is still fairly new and there is a huge body of code out there leveraging the 'bad' way, as it was for years > and years the only way to do a number of useful things.
> merlin
FWIW: I prefer Merlin's solution of erroring out rather than returning an unexpected answer and if it's a buggy behavior it should be eradicated.
The reason is this. For many the (..).* ORDER BY .. looks equivalent to the lateral.
More than a trivial amount of my time has been spent explaining to people why their raster queries are so slow because the SRF is called multiple times and they should switch to LATERAL usage.
So if the old solution is still going to have the same penalty's I would much assume just scrap it and break people's code in a clear and noticeable way they can't ignore.
There is nothing more frustrating than code that still works but gives you an answer different than what you are expecting. Those kind of bugs stay buried for a while.
I think as long as it's noted in the release notes of the breaking change it's fine and called for if it makes your code cleaner and more manageable.
Thanks,
Regina
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: lr@pcorp.us, mmoncure@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 behavior change with set returning (funct).*
In-Reply-To: <001901d1855b$d1efd910$75cf8b30$@pcorp.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox