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.
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 |