Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bkdxu-0003ff-FL for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 21:13:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bkdxt-0008KD-TX for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 21:13:01 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bkdxt-0008K1-50 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 21:13:01 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bkdxq-0003s2-6n for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 21:13:00 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u8FLCtxa015004; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:12:55 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling) In-reply-to: <20160915210843.rhvyqwxjopkp26zc@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <20160912173815.dlew2xsblcso33sw@alap3.anarazel.de> <17324.1473716167@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20160912220705.b77smzorutebnbee@alap3.anarazel.de> <19682.1473719703@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20160912231144.f3nseocp274iq7wg@alap3.anarazel.de> <23413.1473723322@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20160912234630.caueobrrbg5vse5y@alap3.anarazel.de> <557.1473895705@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20160915203222.27fmxjme5gehluei@alap3.anarazel.de> <14138.1473972539@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20160915210843.rhvyqwxjopkp26zc@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:08:43 -0700" Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:12:55 -0400 Message-ID: <15003.1473973975@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-15 16:48:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> The patch that I posted would run both the generate_series(1, 2) and >> generate_series(2,4) calls in the same SRF node, forcing them to run in >> lockstep, after which their results would be fed to the SRF node doing >> the top-level SRFs. We could probably change it to run them in separate >> nodes, but I don't see any principled way to decide which one goes first >> (and in some variants of this example, it would matter). > I think that's fine. I personally still think we're *much* better off > getting rid of the non-lockstep variants. You're still on the fence > about retaining the LCM behaviour (for the same nesting level at least)? I'm happy to get rid of the LCM behavior, I just want to have some wiggle room to be able to get it back if somebody really needs it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers