On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> this patch implement a new iteration construct - iteration over an
>>> array. The sense of this new iteration is:
>>> * a simple and cleaner syntax
>>
>> i will start the review of this one...
>
> so, what is the concensus for this patch?
> return with feedback? reject the patch on the grounds that we should
> go fix unnest() if it slow?
> something else?
I think it should be marked rejected. I don't think Tom is likely to
ever be in favor of a syntax change here, and while I hesitate to deal
in absolutes, I don't think I will be either, and certainly not
without a lot more work on improving the performance of the existing
constructs. In particular, this seems like something that really
ought to be pursued:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg01177.php
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
