Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2016-05-25 15:20:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> We could certainly make a variant behavior in nodeFunctionscan.c that >> emulates that, if we feel that being exactly bug-compatible on the point >> is actually what we want. I'm dubious about that though, not least >> because I don't think *anyone* actually believes that that behavior isn't >> broken. Did you read my upthread message suggesting assorted compromise >> choices?
> You mean https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/21076.1464034...@sss.pgh.pa.us > ? > If so, yes. > If we go with rewriting this into LATERAL, I'd vote for 2.5 (trailed by > option 1), that'd keep most of the functionality, and would break > visibly rather than invisibly in the cases where not. 2.5 would be okay with me. > I guess you're not planning to work on this? Well, not right now, as it's clearly too late for 9.6. I might hack on it later if nobody beats me to it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers