Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> ... I guess I'd prefer #2 to #2.5, #2.5 to #3, and #3 to #1.
>> I really don't like #1 much - I think I'd almost rather do nothing.
>
> FWIW, that's about my evaluation of the alternatives as well.  I fear
> that #1 would get a lot of pushback.  If we think that something like
> "LATERAL ROWS FROM STRICT" is worth having on its own merits, then
> doing #2.5 seems worthwhile to me, but otherwise I'm just as happy
> with #2.  David J. seems to feel that throwing an error (as in #2.5)
> rather than silently behaving incompatibly (as in #2) is important,
> but I'm not convinced.  In a green field I think we'd prefer #2 over
> #2.5, so I'd rather go that direction.

Same here.  That behavior is actually potentially quite useful, right?
 Like, you might want to rely on the NULL-extension thing, if it were
documented as behavior you can count on?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company