Re: CTE inlining

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Serge Rielau <serge(at)rielau(dot)com>, Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ilya Shkuratov <motr(dot)ilya(at)ya(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Mario Becroft <mb(at)true(dot)group>
Subject: Re: CTE inlining
Date: 2017-05-04 18:03:13
Message-ID: 07133bf2-ecc4-77ea-f9c0-4b802dacce54@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 05/04/2017 10:56 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 05/04/2017 01:52 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> On 05/04/2017 10:33 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> I'm not sure what your point is. We know that for some cases the
>>> optimization barrier semantics are useful, which is why the proposal is
>>> to add a keyword to install one explicitely:
>>>
>>> with materialized r as
>>> (
>>> select json_populate_record(null::mytype, myjson) as x
>>> from mytable
>>> )
>>> select (x).*
>>> from r;
>>>
>>> this would preserve the current semantics.
>> I haven't been able to follow this incredibly long thread, so please
>> excuse me if way off base, but are we talking about that a CTE would be
>> silently be rewritten as an inline expression potentially unless it is
>> decorated with some new syntax?
>>
>> I would find that very disconcerting myself. For example, would this CTE
>> potentially get rewritten with multiple evaluation as follows?
>>
>> DROP SEQUENCE IF EXISTS foo_seq;
>> CREATE SEQUENCE foo_seq;
>>
>> WITH a(f1) AS (SELECT nextval('foo_seq'))
>> SELECT a.f1, a.f1 FROM a;
>> f1 | ?column?
>> ----+----------
>> 1 | 1
>> (1 row)
>>
>> ALTER SEQUENCE foo_seq RESTART;
>> SELECT nextval('foo_seq'), nextval('foo_seq');
>> nextval | ?column?
>> ---------+----------
>> 1 | 2
>> (1 row)
>>
>
> I think that would be a change in semantics, which we should definitely
> not be getting. Avoiding a change in semantics might be an interesting
> exercise, but we have lots of clever coders ...

Well I think my point is that I always have understood CTEs to be
executed precisely once producing a temporary result set that is then
referenced elsewhere. I don't think that property of CTEs should change.
Somewhere else in the thread someone mentioned predicate push down --
that makes sense and maybe some clever coder can come up with a patch
that does that, but I would not be in favor of CTEs being inlined and
therefore evaluated multiple times.

Joe

--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-05-04 18:16:57 Re: json_agg produces nonstandard json
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2017-05-04 18:00:11 Re: CTE inlining