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 12:25:34 -0400
Message-ID: <6049.1473697534@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160912161659.nny6vldf4c4o4ytx@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20160523005327.v2tr7obytitxcnna@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20160822214023.aaxz5l4igypowyri@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20160827214829.zo2dfb5jaikii5nw@alap3.anarazel.de>
<3999.1473694177@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20160912161659.nny6vldf4c4o4ytx@alap3.anarazel.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-09-12 11:29:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
> I do think it's awful that an ORDER BY / GROUP BY changes the number of
> rows processed. This should never have been allowed.
Meh. That's just an opinion, and it's a bit late to be making such
changes. I think the general consensus of the previous discussion was
that we would preserve existing tSRF behavior as far as it was reasonably
practical to do so, with the exception that there's wide agreement that
the least-common-multiple rule for number of rows emitted is bad. I do
not think you're going to get anywhere near that level of agreement that
a SRF appearing only in ORDER BY is bad.
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: <6049.1473697534@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