On 05/24/2012 12:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, it's not per spec: what you did accepts queries that are invalid
per spec and are very likely to be errors rather than intentional
invocations of the LATERAL facility. This might be all right for
I think I saw queries where function is joined with
Antonin Houska writes:
> On 05/22/2012 09:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Also, I think we will want something that implements the LATERAL()
>> syntax, rather than just removing the prohibition on lateral references.
> So you think it's not good to first implement (implicitly) lateral
> functions
On 05/22/2012 09:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
This implementation looks different than I'd expect: I would have
thought that it would work by generating paths with param_info set to
the appropriate set of rels to provide the necessary values, rather
than inventing its own mechanism for forcing a n
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Antonin Houska
wrote:
> Hello,
> following this short discussion
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4f5aa202.9020...@gmail.com
> I gave it one more try and hacked the optimizer so that function can become
> an inner relation in NL join, parametrized with v
Hello,
following this short discussion
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4f5aa202.9020...@gmail.com
I gave it one more try and hacked the optimizer so that function can
become an inner relation in NL join, parametrized with values from the
outer relation.
I tried to explain my thoughts
