Re: [HACKERS] ROWS FROM(): A Foolish (In)Consistency?

2015-10-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:03 AM, David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:52:05AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >> > On 10/19/15 1:07 PM, David Fetter wrote: >> >> >> >> What I'd like to do is

Re: [HACKERS] ROWS FROM(): A Foolish (In)Consistency?

2015-10-20 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:16:13AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:03 AM, David Fetter wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:52:05AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Jim Nasby > >> wrote: > >> > On

Re: [HACKERS] ROWS FROM(): A Foolish (In)Consistency?

2015-10-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 10/19/15 1:07 PM, David Fetter wrote: >> >> What I'd like to do is lift the restriction on ROWS FROM(), which >> currently requires that the stuff inside the parentheses set-returning >> functions, so constructs

Re: [HACKERS] ROWS FROM(): A Foolish (In)Consistency?

2015-10-20 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:52:05AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > > On 10/19/15 1:07 PM, David Fetter wrote: > >> > >> What I'd like to do is lift the restriction on ROWS FROM(), which > >> currently requires that the

Re: [HACKERS] ROWS FROM(): A Foolish (In)Consistency?

2015-10-19 Thread David Fetter
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:24:37AM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > Folks, > > As I was learning how best to add native weighted statistics, coming > soon, I noticed that our ROWS FROM() constructor takes only > set-returning functions, gluing the outputs together side by side > without a join

[HACKERS] ROWS FROM(): A Foolish (In)Consistency?

2015-10-19 Thread David Fetter
Folks, As I was learning how best to add native weighted statistics, coming soon, I noticed that our ROWS FROM() constructor takes only set-returning functions, gluing the outputs together side by side without a join condition of any kind. This is a handy capability, which I don't find elsewhere

Re: [HACKERS] ROWS FROM(): A Foolish (In)Consistency?

2015-10-19 Thread Jim Nasby
On 10/19/15 1:07 PM, David Fetter wrote: What I'd like to do is lift the restriction on ROWS FROM(), which currently requires that the stuff inside the parentheses set-returning functions, so constructs something like the following would actually work: SELECT * FROM ROWS FROM ( (VALUES