| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 15:21:16 |
| Message-ID: | 50ACF16C.2020902@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 11/21/2012 09:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
I wasn't talking about removing it. My point was that if the
optimization fence around CTEs is removed a lot of people will need to
rework apps where they have used them for that purpose. And I continue
to think that spelling it "OFFSET 0" is horribly obscure.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-11-21 15:32:09 | Re: Poor performance using CTE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-21 14:59:07 | Re: Poor performance using CTE |