On 2017-04-05 02:47:55 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:49:46AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-03-09 13:34:22 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > > >> Wonder if we there's an argument to be made for implementing this
> > > >> roughly similarly to split_pathtarget_at_srf - instead of injecting a
> > > >> ProjectSet node we'd add a FunctionScan node below a Result node.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, possibly. That would have the advantage of avoiding an ExecProject
> > > > step when the SRFs aren't buried, which would certainly be the expected
> > > > case.
> > > >
> > > > If you don't want to make ExecInitExpr responsible, then the planner would
> > > > have to do something like split_pathtarget_at_srf anyway to decompose the
> > > > expressions, no matter which executor representation we use.
> > >
> > > Did we do anything about this? Are we going to?
> >
> > Working on a patch.
>
> [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
>
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Andres,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
> this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
> discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
> toward speedy resolution. Thanks.
I've a very preliminary patch. I'd like to only start polishing it up
once the code freeze is over, so I can work on getting some patches in -
note that I myself have no pending patches. Once frozen I'll polish it
up and send that within a few days.
Ok?
- Andres