Re: Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2016-09-12T15:29:37Z
Lists: pgsql-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
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