| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wCTE behaviour |
| Date: | 2010-11-14 21:31:02 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikm=jeJxoTJDK6m7noOMqXrRnYBWDcAwK4PEqyn@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2010-11-14 19:35, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Marko Tiikkaja
>> <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:
>>>
>>> In my opinion, all of these should have the same effect: DELETE all rows
>>> from "foo". Any other option means we're going to have trouble
>>> predicting
>>> how a query is going to behave.
>>
>> I think it's clear that's the only sensible behavior.
>
> What if CTE's ever get input parameters?
Then they'd be functions, which we already have. As Tom recently
pointed out, you can even make them temporary with an explicit pg_temp
schema qualification. Perhaps someday we'll have lambda-expressions,
but I have no reason to believe that they'll use any of the wCTE
syntax.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-14 21:36:50 | Re: pg_stat_bgwriter broken? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-14 21:25:24 | Re: Refactoring the Type System |