| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wCTE behaviour |
| Date: | 2010-11-14 21:44:24 |
| Message-ID: | 11483.1289771064@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> What if CTE's ever get input parameters?
> Then they'd be functions, which we already have.
If you mean something like
prepare foo(int) as
with x as (delete from tab where id = $1 returning *)
insert into log_table select * from x;
I don't see that the parameter makes things any less well-defined.
If you mean a parameter in the sense of an executor parameter passed
in from a surrounding nestloop, that'd scare me too --- but I thought
we were going to disallow wCTEs except at the top level of a query,
so the case wouldn't arise.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yeb Havinga | 2010-11-14 22:02:08 | Re: wCTE behaviour |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-11-14 21:40:17 | Re: Rethinking hint bits WAS: Protecting against unexpected zero-pages: proposal |