On 02/02/2012 12:20 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2012/2/2 Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net>:
>>
>> On 02/02/2012 04:35 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
>>> At 2012-02-01 18:48:28 -0500, andrew.dunstan@pgexperts.com wrote:
>>>> For now I'm inclined not to proceed with that, and leave it as an
>>>> optimization to be considered later if necessary. Thoughts?
>>> I agree, there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to do it now.
>>>
>>
>> OK, here's my final version of the patch for constructor functions. If
>> there's no further comment I'll go with this.
> These function are super, Thank you
>
> Do you plan to fix a issue with row attribute names in 9.2?
Yeah. Tom did some initial work which he published here:
<http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/28413.1321500388%40sss.pgh.pa.us>,
noting:
It's not really ideal with respect to the ValuesScan case, because what you get seems to always be the
hard-wired"columnN" names for VALUES columns, even if you try to override that with an alias ... Curiously, it
worksjust fine if the VALUES can be folded
and later he said:
Upon further review, this patch would need some more work even for the RowExpr case, because there are several
placesthat build RowExprs without bothering to build a valid colnames list. It's clearly soluble if anyone cares
toput in the work, but I'm not personally excited enough to pursue it ..
I'm going to look at that issue first, since the unfolded VALUES clause seems like something of an obscure corner case.
Feelfree to chime in if you can.
cheers
andrew
