Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2016-09-15 16:48:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> The patch that I posted would run both the generate_series(1, 2) and >> generate_series(2,4) calls in the same SRF node, forcing them to run in >> lockstep, after which their results would be fed to the SRF node doing >> the top-level SRFs. We could probably change it to run them in separate >> nodes, but I don't see any principled way to decide which one goes first >> (and in some variants of this example, it would matter).
> I think that's fine. I personally still think we're *much* better off > getting rid of the non-lockstep variants. You're still on the fence > about retaining the LCM behaviour (for the same nesting level at least)? I'm happy to get rid of the LCM behavior, I just want to have some wiggle room to be able to get it back if somebody really needs it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers