On 2017-01-18 18:14:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I'll try to write something about the SRF-in-CASE issue too.  Seeing
> > whether we can document that adequately seems like an important part
> > of making the decision about whether we need to block it.
> Here's what I came up with:
>   This behavior also means that set-returning functions will be evaluated
>   even when it might appear that they should be skipped because of a
>   conditional-evaluation construct, such as CASE or COALESCE. For example,
>   consider
>   SELECT x, CASE WHEN x > 0 THEN generate_series(1, 5) ELSE 0 END FROM tab;
>   It might seem that this should produce five repetitions of input rows
>   that have x > 0, and a single repetition of those that do not; but
>   actually it will produce five repetitions of every input row. This is
>   because generate_series() is run first, and then the CASE expression is
>   applied to its result rows. The behavior is thus comparable to
>     FROM tab, LATERAL generate_series(1,5) AS g;
>   It would be exactly the same, except that in this specific example, the
>   planner could choose to put g on the outside of the nestloop join, since
>   g has no actual lateral dependency on tab. That would result in a
>   different output row order. Set-returning functions in the select list
>   are always evaluated as though they are on the inside of a nestloop join
>   with the rest of the FROM clause, so that the function(s) are run to
>   completion before the next row from the FROM clause is considered.
> So is this too ugly to live, or shall we put up with it?

I'm very tentatively in favor of living with it.


Andres Freund

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to