| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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> |
| Subject: | Re: CTE inlining |
| Date: | 2017-04-30 05:28:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20170430052816.n2j52g4za37emp2f@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-04-30 00:28:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> There's already a pretty large hill to climb here in the way of
> breaking peoples' expectations about CTEs being optimization
> fences. Breaking the documented semantics about CTEs being
> single-evaluation seems to me to be an absolute non-starter.
If all referenced functions are non-volatile, I don't quite see the
problem? Personally I believe we'll have to offer a proper
anti-inlining workaround anyway, and in that case there's really nothing
that should stop us from inlining CTE without volatile functions twice?
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-04-30 05:58:14 | Re: CTE inlining |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-04-30 05:19:21 | Re: CTE inlining |