From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:29:37 -0400
Message-ID: <3999.1473694177@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160827214829.zo2dfb5jaikii5nw@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20160523005327.v2tr7obytitxcnna@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20160822214023.aaxz5l4igypowyri@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20160827214829.zo2dfb5jaikii5nw@alap3.anarazel.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> 0002-Shore-up-some-weird-corner-cases-for-targetlist-SRFs.patch
> Forbid UPDATE ... SET foo = SRF() and ORDER BY / GROUP BY containing
> SRFs that would change the number of returned rows. Without the
> latter e.g. SELECT 1 ORDER BY generate_series(1,10); returns 10 rows.
I'm on board with disallowing SRFs in UPDATE, because it produces
underdetermined and unspecified results; but the other restriction
seems 100% arbitrary. There is no semantic difference between
SELECT a, b FROM ... ORDER BY srf();
and
SELECT a, b, srf() FROM ... ORDER BY 3;
except that in the first case the ordering column doesn't get returned to
the client. I do not see why that's so awful that we should make it fail
after twenty years of allowing it. And I certainly don't see why there
would be an implementation reason why we couldn't support it anymore
if we can still do the second one.
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
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de
Subject: Re: Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)
In-Reply-To: <3999.1473694177@sss.pgh.pa.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