Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Cc: Chris Rogers <teukros(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?
Date: 2015-05-01 21:36:31
Message-ID: CA+TgmoauX9XwLNLXSM3THfAkT=19PRVeeGYxCZOnsJPZpb9Q8w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> ISTR a comment to the effect of the SQL standard effectively requires
> current behavior.

I'd be astonished. The SQL standard doesn't even know that there is
such a thing as an index, so I presume it doesn't dictate the behavior
of the query planner either.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-05-01 21:39:30 Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2015-05-01 21:27:58 Re: Broken handling of NULLs in TG_ARGV