Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwZpWenprA-i6LAg3q29QO-6Dc=q3gi_VVxeiR5-1A_dtg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>> Ah, so that's what "pipeline results" mean!  I hadn't gotten that.  I
>> agree; Abhijit had a patch or a plan for this, a long time ago ...

> ​Is this sidebar strictly an implementation detail, not user visible?

Hmm.  It could be visible in the sense that the execution of multiple
functions in one ROWS FROM() construct could be interleaved, while
(I think) the current implementation runs each one to completion
serially.  But if you're writing code that assumes that, I think you
should not be very surprised when we break it.  In any case, that
would not affect the proposed translation for SRFs-in-tlist, since
those have that behavior today.

Thanks

​Sounds like "zipper results" would be a better term for it...but, yes, if that's the general context it falls into implementation from my perspective.​

​But then I don't get Joe's point - if its an implementation detail why should it matter if rewriting the SRF-in-tlist to be laterals changes execution from a serial to an interleaved​ implementation.  Plus, Joe's claim: "the capability to pipeline results is still only available in the target list", and yours above are at odds since you claim the rewritten behavior is the same today.  Is there a disconnect in knowledge or are you talking about different things?

​David J.​

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Calling json_* functions with JSONB data
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Calling json_* functions with JSONB data