Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling

Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> I would be in favor of rewriting it to a LATERAL, but that would not be
> backwards compatible entirely either IIUC.

It could be made so, I think, but it may be more trouble than it's worth;
see my previous message.

> I'll also note that, unless I missed something, we also have to consider
> that the capability to pipeline results is still only available in the
> target list.

Yes, we would definitely want to improve nodeFunctionscan.c to perform
better for ValuePerCall SRFs.  But that has value independently of this.
        regards, tom lane