Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >>> 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.
> Curious if this approach will also rewrite: > select generate_series(1,generate_series(1,3)) s; > ...into > select s from generate_series(1,3) x cross join lateral generate_series(1,x) > s; Yeah, that would be the idea. > another interesting case today is: > create sequence s; > select generate_series(1,nextval('s')), generate_series(1,nextval('s')); > this statement never terminates. a lateral rewrite of this query > would always terminate with much better defined and well understood > behaviors -- this is good. Interesting example demonstrating that 100% bug compatibility is not possible. But as you say, most people would probably prefer the other behavior anyhow. 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