Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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