On 28/06/2024 01:01, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
> If it seems good to let people use SupportRequestSimplify to make their SRFs be inlineable, I'm
> happy to add tests and docs. We should really document the idea of inlined functions in general, so
> I'll do that too.
>
> Another approach I considered is using a separate support request, e.g. SupportRequestInlineSRF, and
> just calling it from inline_set_returning_function. I didn't like having two support requests that
> did almost exactly the same thing. OTOH my current approach means you'll get an error if you do this:
>
> ```
> postgres=# select temporal_semijoin('employees', 'id', 'valid_at', 'positions', 'employee_id',
> 'valid_at');
> ERROR: unrecognized node type: 66
> ```
>
> I'll look into ways to fix that.
If the support function returns a Query, we end up having a FuncExpr
with a Query in the tree. A Query isnt an Expr, which is why you get
that error, and it seems like a recipe for confusion in general. Perhaps
returning a SubLink would be better.
I think we should actually add an assertion after the call to the
SupportRequestSimplify support function, to check that it returned an
Expr node.
+1 to the general feature of letting SRFs be simplified by the support
function.
> I think SupportRequestSimplify is a really cool feature. It is nearly like having macros.
> I'm dreaming about other ways I can (ab)use it.
:-D
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)
