From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Greg Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Hitoshi Harada" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Dimitri Fontaine" <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "Tatsuo Ishii" <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch |
Date: | 2008-10-01 14:11:09 |
Message-ID: | 9067.1222870269@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Greg Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So it seems like the appropriate generalization is to have an array of
>> read positions inside the tuplestore and allow callers to say "read
>> using position N", plus some API to allow positions to be allocated to
>> different requestors.
> One other reason the tuplestore should know the position of all the
> readers is that ideally it would want to be able to discard any tuples
> older than the oldest read position. That also means it needs to know
> when all the call sites have allocated their position and don't need
> to reset it.
Good point. So we'd need per-position capability flags, not
per-tuplestore.
I hadn't realized that this would be relevant to window functions.
Now that I know that, I propose fixing tuplestore for multiple
positions and committing it separately, before I go back to the CTE
patch. Then Hitoshi-san will have something he can work with too.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-01 14:27:52 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
Previous Message | Brian Hurt | 2008-10-01 14:05:33 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |