Re: Backport "WITH ... AS MATERIALIZED" syntax to <12?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org,Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>,Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Colin Watson <cjwatson(at)canonical(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Backport "WITH ... AS MATERIALIZED" syntax to <12?
Date: 2019-10-19 09:56:56
Message-ID: B1FAE304-3236-4233-97B5-0898622D81B3@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On October 19, 2019 6:01:04 AM GMT+02:00, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
>>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 02:21:30PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> >> However, an alternative would be to backport the new syntax to some
> >> earlier versions. "WITH ... AS MATERIALIZED" can easily just be
> >> synonymous with "WITH ... AS" in versions prior to 12; there's no
> >> need to support "NOT MATERIALIZED" since that's explicitly
> >> requesting the new query-folding feature that only exists in 12.
> >> Would something like the attached patch against REL_11_STABLE be
> >> acceptable? I'd like to backpatch it at least as far as PostgreSQL
> >> 10.
>
> Michael> I am afraid that new features don't gain a backpatch. This is
>Michael> a project policy. Back-branches should just include bug fixes.
>
>I do think an argument can be made for making an exception in this
>particular case. This wouldn't be backpatching a feature, just
>accepting
>and ignoring some of the new syntax to make upgrading easier.

+1

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-10-19 10:26:08 Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays
Previous Message Colin Watson 2019-10-19 09:22:39 Re: Backport "WITH ... AS MATERIALIZED" syntax to <12?