Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> That worked quite well. So we have a few questions, before I clean this
> up:
> - For now the node is named 'Srf' both internally and in explain - not
> sure if we want to make that something longer/easier to understand for
> others? Proposals? TargetFunctionScan? SetResult?
"Srf" is ugly as can be, and unintelligible. SetResult might be OK.
> - I continued with the division of Labor that Tom had set up, so we're
> creating one Srf node for each "nested" set of SRFs. We'd discussed
> nearby to change that for one node/path for all nested SRFs, partially
> because of costing. But I don't like the idea that much anymore. The
> implementation seems cleaner (and probably faster) this way, and I
> don't think nested targetlist SRFs are something worth optimizing
> for. Anybody wants to argue differently?
Not me.
> Comments?
Hard to comment on your other points without a patch to look at.
regards, tom lane