Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > That worked quite well. So we have a few questions, before I clean this > up:
> - For now the node is named 'Srf' both internally and in explain - not > sure if we want to make that something longer/easier to understand for > others? Proposals? TargetFunctionScan? SetResult? "Srf" is ugly as can be, and unintelligible. SetResult might be OK. > - I continued with the division of Labor that Tom had set up, so we're > creating one Srf node for each "nested" set of SRFs. We'd discussed > nearby to change that for one node/path for all nested SRFs, partially > because of costing. But I don't like the idea that much anymore. The > implementation seems cleaner (and probably faster) this way, and I > don't think nested targetlist SRFs are something worth optimizing > for. Anybody wants to argue differently? Not me. > Comments? Hard to comment on your other points without a patch to look at. 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