On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> I'd not have gone for SetResult if we didn't already have Result. I'm >> not super happy ending up having Project in ProjectSet but not in the >> Result that end up doing the majority of the projection. But eh, we can >> live with it. > > Using Result for two completely different things is a wart though. If we > had it to do over I think we'd define Result as a scan node that produces > rows from no input, and create a separate Project node for the case of > projecting from input tuples. People are used to seeing Result in EXPLAIN > output, so it's not worth the trouble of changing that IMO, but we don't > have to use it as a model for more node types.
+1, although I think changing the existing node would be fine too if somebody wanted to do the work. It's not worth having that wart forever just to avoid whatever minor pain-of-adjustment might be involved. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
