Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-07-24 19:49:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, a singly-referenced SELECT CTE could reasonably be treated as
>> equivalent to a sub-select-in-FROM, and then you would have the same
>> mechanisms for preventing inlining as you do for those cases,
>> e.g. OFFSET 0. And sticking in OFFSET 0 would be backwards-compatible
>> too: your code would still work the same in older releases, unlike if
>> we invent new syntax for this.

> I still think this is just doubling down on prior mistakes.

Not following what you think a better alternative is? I'd be the
first to agree that OFFSET 0 is a hack, but people are used to it.

Assuming that we go for inline-by-default for at least some cases,
there's a separate discussion to be had about whether it's worth
making a planner-control GUC to force the old behavior. I'm not
very excited about that, but I bet some people will be.

regards, tom lane