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

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:

Reply via email to