On 2017-04-11 17:25:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> > Tom, do you have any opinion on the volatility stuff?
> What was the previous behavior for such cases?  If it was reasonably
> sane, we probably have to preserve it.  If it was unpredictable or
> completely wacko, maybe we don't.

Previously we'd stash the result in a new tuplestore, because it
happened inside ExecMakeTableFunctionResult()'s fallback path.  The
inner tuplestore (from the proper SRF) would get evaluated via the the
isDone mechanism.

That'd imo be a fair amount of work to emulate, because we'd have to
manually go over the tuplesttore.

But given that we do *not* have similar semantics for volatiles in the
targetlist, I'm quite unconvinced that that's necessary.  Consider
e.g. my previous example of
  SELECT * FROM CAST(srf() * volatile_func() AS whatnot)
rewritten into a saner version as
  SELECT srf * volatile_func() FROM srf() AS srf;
here volatile_func() would before and now get re-evaluated if there's a
rewind, and would only be invoked if the row is actually evaluated.

- Andres

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

Reply via email to