| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, 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 21:39:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTUyxT6z1OJ_93WMz1gwr-VOjD4bYXxmrra5QY4JAHPaA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
I agree. Somehow, the idea that this is within the standard caught on,
but I'm almost certain it's false.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2015-05-01 22:00:44 | Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-01 21:39:30 | Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list? |