On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> That seems to me to be unlikely to happen, because it would be
> impossible to preserve the current (admittedly bad) semantics.
> If we're going to change the behavior at all we might as well just
> drop the feature, IMO.
It would be nice to support a single SRF in the target list. That
would side-step the bad semantics and also make it easier to
implement. But I'm not sure how easy it would be in practice because
I've learned not to underestimate the difficulty of making seemingly
small changes to the planner.
--
greg