Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-01-17 13:43:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that that optimization is worth preserving, but if we
>> keep it then ProjectSet isn't le mot juste here, any more than you'd want
>> to rename Result to Project without changing its existing
>> functionality.
> Right. I'd removed that, and re-added it; primarily because the plans
> looked more complex without it. After all, you'd thought it worth adding
> that hack ;) I'm happy with removing it again too.
Well, it seemed reasonable to do that as long as the only cost was ten or
so lines in create_projection_plan. But if we're contorting not only the
behavior but the very name of the SRF-evaluation plan node type, that's
not negligible cost anymore. So now I'm inclined to take it out.
regards, tom lane
