Re: Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause(Commit id: 69f4b9c85f) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Noah Misch
Subject Re: Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause(Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
Date
Msg-id 20170406020106.GC2731217@tornado.leadboat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause(Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 12:16:25AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-05 02:47:55 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:49:46AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2017-03-09 13:34:22 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > > > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > > > >> Wonder if we there's an argument to be made for implementing this
> > > > >> roughly similarly to split_pathtarget_at_srf - instead of injecting a
> > > > >> ProjectSet node we'd add a FunctionScan node below a Result node.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, possibly.  That would have the advantage of avoiding an ExecProject
> > > > > step when the SRFs aren't buried, which would certainly be the expected
> > > > > case.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you don't want to make ExecInitExpr responsible, then the planner would
> > > > > have to do something like split_pathtarget_at_srf anyway to decompose the
> > > > > expressions, no matter which executor representation we use.
> > > > 
> > > > Did we do anything about this?  Are we going to?
> > > 
> > > Working on a patch.
> > 
> > [Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]
> > 
> > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Andres,
> > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> > item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> > v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
> > this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
> > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> > well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
> > toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.
> 
> I've a very preliminary patch.  I'd like to only start polishing it up
> once the code freeze is over, so I can work on getting some patches in -
> note that I myself have no pending patches.  Once frozen I'll polish it
> up and send that within a few days.
> 
> Ok?

Okay; using my simplistic translator of "a few", I'll look for your next
status update on or before 2017-04-11.  As always, feel free to set a
different date.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Append implementation