Re: Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-09-02T14:25:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2016-09-02 10:20:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2016-09-02 09:05:35 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >>> In general, we've been skeptical about giving any guarantees about > >>> result ordering. > > > Well, it's historically how we behaved for SRFs. I'm pretty sure that > > people will be confused if > > SELECT generate_series(1, 10) FROM sometbl; > > suddenly returns rows in an order that reverse from what > > generate_series() returns. > > True, but how much "enforcement" do we need really? This will be a cross > product join, which means that it can only be done as a nestloop not as a > merge or hash (there being no join key to merge or hash on). ISTM all we > need is that the SRF be on the inside of the join, which is automatic > if it's LATERAL. Right. But there's nothing to force a lateral reference to be there intrinsically. I've added a "fake" lateral reference to the ROWS FROM RTE to the subquery, when there's none otherwise, but that's not entirely pretty. I'm inclined to go with that though, unless somebody has a better idea. Greetings, Andres Freund
Commits
-
Remove obsoleted code relating to targetlist SRF evaluation.
- ea15e18677fc 10.0 landed
-
Doc: improve documentation of new SRF-in-tlist behavior.
- f13a1277aa2d 10.0 landed
-
Move targetlist SRF handling from expression evaluation to new executor node.
- 69f4b9c85f16 10.0 landed
-
Don't split up SRFs when choosing to postpone SELECT output expressions.
- d543170f2fdd 9.6.0 cited