From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
Date: | 2019-02-27 04:45:56 |
Message-ID: | 22551.1551242756@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom> Also, I thought of a somewhat-related scenario that the code isn't
> Tom> accounting for: you can break the restrictions about single
> Tom> evaluation with nested WITHs, like
> I also thought about that. But what I thought about it on reflection
> was: if the user explicitly wrote NOT MATERIALIZED, then we should
> assume they mean it.
Ah, but the example I gave also had MATERIALIZED on the inner WITH.
Why should the user not also mean that?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2019-02-27 04:56:25 | Re: COPY FREEZE and setting PD_ALL_VISIBLE/visibility map bits |
Previous Message | Nagaura, Ryohei | 2019-02-27 04:25:27 | RE: Timeout parameters |