| From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723 |
| Date: | 2008-07-29 00:13:16 |
| Message-ID: | 873altr1ib.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
>> Since the problem is using the result of a WITH clause more than
>> once, would it be sufficient to simply detect that case and bail?
>> You don't want materialisation is most cases, there's just a few
>> where it is needed.
Tom> Really? I tried googling to see what other people thought that
Tom> the WITH clause was for, and the first relevant hit I got was
Tom> this one: http://www.oracle-developer.net/display.php?id=212
Tom> which certainly treats it as a key part of the feature.
Try searching for "common table expression".
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-07-29 00:49:38 | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-29 00:06:57 | Re: Review: DTrace probes (merged version) ver_03 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-07-29 06:42:51 | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-28 23:18:14 | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723 |