On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Stephen Frost<sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> Fair enough. I think I started to drift off in the direction of >> making that argument, but it wasn't really my point. > > To be honest, I'm not sure I agree with Tom here on the value of > requiring a keyword to tell the system that you really mean what you > wrote. On the other hand, it sounds like the spec is pretty clear on > this, and I don't feel we should violate it just because we think it's > being silly on this point.
That's pretty much where I am, too, modulo needing to better understand the aforesaid spec. >> The original >> point I was trying to make is that we may not need to invent any kind >> of new name-resolution or scoping in order to make LATERAL() work. >> Instead, LATERAL() can just do everything normally with the exception >> of not throwing the following errors when they would otherwise be >> thrown: > > I don't know for sure, but I do hope you're right. I'd certainly love > to be able to do this in general.. There's a number of cases where I've > had to do the hokey-pokey to get around our lack of ability to do this > when using set-returning functions. Me too. >> I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but if I am, it seems likely to >> be a pretty straightforward change. > > Please continue to explore it and propose a patch. :) Yeah, that's the not-so-easy part. Gotta grok this executor stuff first before I can even think about implementing this. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
