From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:17:46 -0300
Message-ID: <20170116151746.smipap4c6pcxn24e@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170116083316.2izqrxbvmyalazac@alap3.anarazel.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Andres Freund wrote:
> That worked quite well. So we have a few questions, before I clean this
> up:
>
> - For now the node is named 'Srf' both internally and in explain - not
> sure if we want to make that something longer/easier to understand for
> others? Proposals? TargetFunctionScan? SetResult?
>
> - We could alternatively add all this into the Result node - it's not
> actually a lot of new code, and most of that is boilerplate stuff
> about adding a new node. I'm ok with both.
Hmm. I wonder if your stuff could be used as support code for
XMLTABLE[1]. Currently it has a bit of additional code of its own,
though admittedly it's very little code executor-side. Would you mind
sharing a patch, or more details on how it works?
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRA_KEukOBXvS4V-imoEEsXu0pD0AsHV0-MwRFDRWte8Lg@mail.gmail...> - I continued with the division of Labor that Tom had set up, so we're
> creating one Srf node for each "nested" set of SRFs. We'd discussed
> nearby to change that for one node/path for all nested SRFs, partially
> because of costing. But I don't like the idea that much anymore. The
> implementation seems cleaner (and probably faster) this way, and I
> don't think nested targetlist SRFs are something worth optimizing
> for. Anybody wants to argue differently?
Nested targetlist SRFs make my head spin. I suppose they may have some
use, but where would you really want this:
alvherre=# select generate_series(1, generate_series(2, 4));
generate_series
─────────────────
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
(9 filas)
instead of the much more sensible
alvherre=# select i, j from generate_series(2, 4) i, generate_series(1, i) j;
i │ j
───┼───
2 │ 1
2 │ 2
3 │ 1
3 │ 2
3 │ 3
4 │ 1
4 │ 2
4 │ 3
4 │ 4
(9 filas)
? If supporting the former makes it harder to support/optimize more
reasonable cases, it seems fair game to leave them behind.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
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: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, andres@anarazel.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)
In-Reply-To: <20170116151746.smipap4c6pcxn24e@alvherre.pgsql>
* 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