Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-01-18 16:56:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> I have not actually looked at 0003 at all yet. So yeah, please post >> for review after you're done rebasing.
> Here's a rebased and lightly massaged version.
I've read through this and made some minor improvements, mostly additional
comment cleanup. One thing I wanted to ask about:
@@ -4303,7 +4303,7 @@ inline_function(Oid funcid, Oid result_type, Oid
result_collid,
/*
* Forget it if the function is not SQL-language or has other showstopper
- * properties. (The nargs check is just paranoia.)
+ * properties. (The nargs and retset checks are just paranoia.)
*/
if (funcform->prolang != SQLlanguageId ||
funcform->prosecdef ||
I thought this change was simply wrong, and removed it; AFAIK it's
perfectly possible to get here for set-returning functions, since
the planner does expression simplification long before it worries
about splitting out SRFs. Did you have a reason to think differently?
Other than that possible point, I think the attached is committable.
regards, tom lane
no-srfs-in-tlists-cleanup-2.patch.gz
Description: no-srfs-in-tlists-cleanup-2.patch.gz
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
