| From: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(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: | 2008-10-02 09:02:35 |
| Message-ID: | AD90F7B6-E12C-4A22-A9E2-D5118A09F12C@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2 Oct 2008, at 05:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Hitoshi Harada" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Hmm, I've looked over the patch. Logically window functions can
>> access
>> arbitrary rows that have been stored in a frame. Thus I had thought
>> tuplestore should hold all the positions and allow arbitrary random
>> access indicated by integer. Maybe those functionalities can be
>> abstracted by the window function API itself. For this matter it
>> seems
>> that you'd better to look at my future patch.
>
> Well, the problem with defining it as "arbitrary" random access is
> that
> there's no way for the tuplestore to throw away old data.
And that there's no way to make it work if the tuplestore has spilled
to disk.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2008-10-02 09:53:17 | Re: Transactions within a function body |
| Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2008-10-02 09:01:37 | Re: Transactions within a function body |