DOC not so clear

=?utf-8?q?PG_Doc_comments_form?= <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/queries-table-expressions.html#QUERIES-LATERAL

The resulting row(s) are joined as usual with the rows they were computed
from.

Here is not so clear what 'joined as usual' mean.

Why not?

Probably DOC should explicitly say that if LATERAL function return empty set
then current row is excluded from result set

That would be wrong for "LEFT JOIN LATERAL ...", so it does not seem
like an improvement.

regards, tom lane

Hello Tom,

Monday, January 14, 2019, 6:15:31 PM, you wrote:

=?utf-8?q?PG_Doc_comments_form?= <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/queries-table-expressions.html#QUERIES-LATERAL

The resulting row(s) are joined as usual with the rows they were computed
from.

Here is not so clear what 'joined as usual' mean.

Why not?

Advanced users may understand that, but from my beginner point of view
this is not. I do not understand that sentence until read whole text
and about LEFT JOIN LATERAL. Even now 'usual' may mean:
CROSS/RIGHT/FULL??

Probably DOC should explicitly say that if LATERAL function return empty set
then current row is excluded from result set

That would be wrong for "LEFT JOIN LATERAL ...", so it does not seem
like an improvement.

LATERAL != LEFT JOIN LATERAL
it would be more clear if DOC will be more explicit.

regards, tom lane

--
Best regards,
Eugen Konkov

On Monday, January 14, 2019, Eugen Konkov <kes-kes@yandex.ru> wrote:

Hello Tom,

Monday, January 14, 2019, 6:15:31 PM, you wrote:

=?utf-8?q?PG_Doc_comments_form?= <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/queries-table-

expressions.html#QUERIES-LATERAL

The resulting row(s) are joined as usual with the rows they were

computed

from.

Here is not so clear what 'joined as usual' mean.

Why not?

Advanced users may understand that, but from my beginner point of view
this is not. I do not understand that sentence until read whole text
and about LEFT JOIN LATERAL. Even now 'usual' may mean:
CROSS/RIGHT/FULL?

“FROM from_item1, from_item2” has previously been defined to be a cross
join - now with lateral specific from_item2 row(s) are generated using a
single row of from_item1 and cross joined only to that row and no others.
Iteratively.

Left/right/full all require an on/using clause which is pointless for
lateral as the injection of columns from the other row forms an explicit
join link.

Probably DOC should explicitly say that if LATERAL function return

empty set

then current row is excluded from result set

That would be wrong for "LEFT JOIN LATERAL ...", so it does not seem
like an improvement.

LATERAL != LEFT JOIN LATERAL
it would be more clear if DOC will be more explicit.

It does:
“It is often particularly handy to LEFT JOIN to a LATERAL subquery, so that
source rows will appear in the result even if the LATERAL subquery produces
no rows for them.”

There may be room for improvement here but it’s non-obvious what exactly it
would look like. It isn’t wrong nor particularly problematic given the
lack of questions seen about lateral on these lists. You are welcome to
supply a patch for consideration though.

David J.