On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Hello >>> >>> this patch implement a new iteration construct - iteration over an >>> array. The sense of this new iteration is: >>> * a simple and cleaner syntax >> >> i will start the review of this one... > > so, what is the concensus for this patch? > return with feedback? reject the patch on the grounds that we should > go fix unnest() if it slow? > something else?
I think it should be marked rejected. I don't think Tom is likely to ever be in favor of a syntax change here, and while I hesitate to deal in absolutes, I don't think I will be either, and certainly not without a lot more work on improving the performance of the existing constructs. In particular, this seems like something that really ought to be pursued: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg01177.php -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
