| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chris Rogers <teukros(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list? |
| Date: | 2015-05-01 20:53:30 |
| Message-ID: | 5543E7CA.4080306@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/30/15 6:35 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Chris Rogers <teukros(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Has there been any movement on this in the last couple years?
>>
>> I could really use the ability to optimize across CTE boundaries, and it
>> seems like a lot of other people could too.
>
> I'm not aware that anyone is working on it.
ISTR a comment to the effect of the SQL standard effectively requires
current behavior.
I'd still love to see a way around that though, even if it means some
kind of additional syntax; WITH is a lot nicer way to factor a query
than 10 nested subselects...
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-05-01 21:02:55 | Re: Loss of some parts of the function definition |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-01 19:59:21 | Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory |