Re: Writeable CTE patch

From: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Writeable CTE patch
Date: 2009-11-29 22:38:50
Message-ID: 34d269d40911291438p65bc85deg280a6a508b3e65bc@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:59, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 1. I thought we'd agreed at
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-10/msg00558.php
> that the patch should support WITH on DML statements, eg
>        with (some-query) insert into foo ...
> This might not take much more than grammar additions, but it's
> definitely lacking at the moment.

Hrm ? A few messages down you say SELECT should be a good start

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-10/msg01081.php

> 2. The handling of rules on DML WITH queries is far short of sufficient.

Ick.

> Perhaps it would be acceptable to just throw ERROR_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED
> when there are DO ALSO or conditional DO INSTEAD rules applying to the
> target of a DML WITH query.

+1

> 3. I'm pretty unimpressed with the code added to ExecutePlan.
> I wonder whether it would be practical to fix both #2 and #3 by having the
> representation of DML WITH queries look more like the representation of
> rule rewrite output

Interesting... This seems like the best solution ( assuming its
workable ). It also looks like it might make #1 easier as well.

However, I think the current approach does have some virtue in that I
was surprised how little the patch was. Granted that is partly due to
ExecutePlan knowing to much.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-11-29 23:25:29 Re: Application name patch - v4
Previous Message Joshua Tolley 2009-11-29 22:29:08 Re: plperl and inline functions -- first draft