On Apr 25, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby writes:
>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> If you're thinking of just replacing the call with a sub-SELECT
>>> construct, that's no good in general because it would change the
>>> semantics.
>
>> Since Alexey was working on
Jim Nasby writes:
> On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If you're thinking of just replacing the call with a sub-SELECT
>> construct, that's no good in general because it would change the
>> semantics.
> Since Alexey was working on this for us, I'll elaborate. The actual
> use case is
On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexey Klyukin writes:
>> Is there a reason why only a table free SQL functions are allowed to
>> be inlined ? I wonder why a simple SQL function containing only a
>> SELECT * FROM table can't be expanded inline ?
>
> If you're thinking of just repl
Alexey Klyukin writes:
> Is there a reason why only a table free SQL functions are allowed to
> be inlined ? I wonder why a simple SQL function containing only a
> SELECT * FROM table can't be expanded inline ?
If you're thinking of just replacing the call with a sub-SELECT
construct, that's no
