Tom, all,

* Tom Lane ( wrote:
> Robert Haas <> writes:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <> wrote:
> >> If you don't want to make ExecInitExpr responsible, then the planner would
> >> have to do something like split_pathtarget_at_srf anyway to decompose the
> >> expressions, no matter which executor representation we use.
> > Did we do anything about this?  Are we going to?
> No, and I think we should.  Is it on the v10 open items list?

Wasn't, I've added it now:



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to