Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Date: 2011-02-26 13:31:16
Message-ID: AANLkTi=cNoh8Ww7YOtekqvbTq4HbqQv4LQPwzmdSsRem@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> So we really need some refactoring here.  I dislike adding another
> fundamental step to the ExecutorStart/ExecutorRun/ExecutorEnd sequence,
> but there may not be a better way.  The only way I see to fix this
> without changing that API is to have ExecutorRun do the cleanup
> processing just after the top plan node returns a null tuple, and that
> seems a bit ugly as well.
>

How would that handle the case of a cursor which isn't read to
completion? Should it still execute the CTEs to completion?

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rod Taylor 2011-02-26 13:38:31 Re: WIP: cross column correlation ...
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2011-02-26 11:07:37 Re: Keywords in pg_hba.conf should be field-specific