| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gunther Schadow <raj(at)gusw(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: When you really want to force a certain join type? |
| Date: | 2022-12-29 07:52:10 |
| Message-ID: | 492412.1672300330@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Gunther Schadow <raj(at)gusw(dot)net> writes:
> Also, why even use the RECURSIVE keyword, DB2 didn't need it, and the
> query analyzer should immediately see the recursion, so no need to have
> that keyword.
Our reading of the SQL spec is that it's required. The scope of
visibility of CTE names is different depending on whether you
write RECURSIVE or not, so it's not a question of "the query analyzer
should see it": the analyzer is required NOT to see it.
DB2 generally has a reputation for agreeing with the spec,
so I'm surprised to hear that they're not doing this per spec.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Maxim Boguk | 2022-12-31 12:26:08 | How to analyze of short but heavy intermittent slowdown on BIND on production database (or BIND vs log_lock_waits) |
| Previous Message | Gunther Schadow | 2022-12-29 07:31:59 | Re: When you really want to force a certain join type? |