| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wCTE behaviour |
| Date: | 2010-11-13 15:23:34 |
| Message-ID: | 4CDEAD76.1040803@cs.helsinki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2010-11-13 5:08 PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja<marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
>> On 13 Nov 2010, at 15:41, David Fetter<david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>>> Similarly, if a normal CTE called a data-changing function but was
>>> nevertheless not referred to, it would still run.
>
>> Actually, it wouldn't.
>
> Indeed, and that was considered a feature when we did it. I think
> that having wCTEs behave arbitrarily differently on this point
> might be a bad idea.
So these queries would behave differently?
WITH t AS (DELETE FROM foo RETURNING *)
SELECT 1 WHERE false;
WITH t AS (DELETE FROM foo RETURNING *)
SELECT 1 FROM t LIMIT 0;
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Clark C. Evans | 2010-11-13 15:36:21 | Re: wCTE behaviour |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-13 15:08:51 | Re: wCTE behaviour |