From: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQL2011 and writeable CTE |
Date: | 2010-11-08 15:46:32 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=hB1TOoEU9K+ECONqsup00BtsiXwn5sXa7Jmk2@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/11/9 Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 2010/11/8 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> 2010/11/8 Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
>>> Hmm, this looks very different from our writeable CTEs. And I can see
>>> many issues like syntax ambiguity and execution order if we support
>>> it. AFAIK the most significant reason why we are working on CTEs is
>>> that CTEs are regarded as something like materialized table.
>>>
>>> So I think we are going on writeable "CTEs" unless there are no
>>> objection rather than pursuing the standard.
>>> Thanks for sharing anyway.
>>>
>>
>> I found, so writeable CTE was implemented in Microsoft SQL server too.
>> Can be our implementation compatible?
>>
>
> I don't believe MS SQL Server doesn't implement such our writeable
I mean, "I don't believe it implements..." :)
--
Hitoshi Harada
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-11-08 15:49:52 | Re: Should we use make -k on the buildfarm? |
Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2010-11-08 15:45:31 | Re: SQL2011 and writeable CTE |