Ronald Peterson wrote > The existence of LATERAL seems to imply that it's possible. The presence of LATERAL, which applies during FROM clause processing, implies nothing about what is possible during SELECT-list processing. This was a problem for a long time and if an easy/possible solution was possible without LATERAL it would have been done. LATERAL took a while to get around to but neatly solves the problem. I'll agree the being able to write: SELECT col1, col2, func_call(...).*, col3 for non-set-returning-functions seems to have some value (though such a function is likely to be defined stable or immutable and so side-steps the problem - I think) but the most common reason for wanting SELECT func_call(...) is for a set-returning-function with table-based inputs. Since your example was set-returning it doesn't add anything to the argument for not using LATERAL; and there are other problems than just multiple-evaluation that occur when placing a set-returning-function into the select-list. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/extra-function-calls-from-query-returning-composite-type-tp5832275p5832606.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
