| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ilya Shkuratov <motr(dot)ilya(at)ya(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: CTE inlining |
| Date: | 2017-04-30 07:46:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20170430074633.k2w5pvtze7ra2kto@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2017-04-30 13:58:14 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> We have OFFSET 0 for anyone really depending on it, and at least when you
> read that you know to go "wtf" and look at the manual, wheras the CTE fence
> behaviour is invisible and silent.
I don't think that's a good idea. What if you need to prevent inlining
of something that actually needs an offset? What if the behaviour of
offset is ever supposed to change? Relying more on that seems to just
be repeating the mistake around CTEs.
> Like the work Andes has been doing on our bizarre handing of SRFs in the
> SELECT target list I really think it's just something that needs to be
> done.
With help from Tom, luckily...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Borodin | 2017-04-30 07:47:43 | Re: On How To Shorten the Steep Learning Curve Towards PG Hacking... |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-04-30 05:58:14 | Re: CTE inlining |