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
> 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: