| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Greco <David_Greco(at)harte-hanks(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Poor performance using CTE |
| Date: | 2012-11-21 14:59:07 |
| Message-ID: | 3396.1353509947@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> If we're going to do it can we please come up with something more
> intuitive and much, much more documented than "OFFSET 0"? And if/when we
> do this we'll need to have big red warnings all over then release notes,
> since a lot of people I know will need to do some extensive remediation
> before moving to such a release.
The probability that we would actually *remove* that behavior of OFFSET
0 is not distinguishable from zero. I'm not terribly excited about
having an alternate syntax to specify an optimization fence, but even
if we do create such a thing, there's no need to break the historical
usage.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-11-21 15:21:16 | Re: Poor performance using CTE |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-11-21 14:47:12 | Re: Poor performance using CTE |