| From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: wCTE behaviour |
| Date: | 2010-11-11 18:53:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20101111185303.GA1685@fetter.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:36:38PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > then the conclusion is foregone. To my mind, they should be thought of
> > as running in parallel, or at least in an indeterminate order, just
> > exactly the same way that different data modifications made in a single
> > INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE command are considered to be made simultaneously.
>
> +1
-1.
When people want to see what has gone before, they can use RETURNING
clauses. With the "indeterminate order" proposal, they cannot.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2010-11-11 18:56:45 | Re: wCTE behaviour |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-11-11 18:46:07 | Re: MULTISET and additional functions for ARRAY |