| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2017-05-02 14:44:33 |
| Message-ID: | f4a6e5be-b322-e224-e9fc-8fed9bff284c@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/02/2017 10:13 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> On 2017-04-30 07:19:21 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> why we cannot to introduce GUC option - enable_cteoptfence ?
>> Doesn't really solve the issue, and we've generally shied away from GUCs
>> that influence behaviour after a few bad experiences. What if you want
>> one CTE inlined, but another one not?
> Yeah. Are we absolutely opposed to SQL syntax against WITH that
> allows or disallows fencing? for example,
>
> WITH [MATERIALIZED]
>
> Pushing people to OFFSET 0 is a giant step backwards IMO, and as in
> implementation detail is also subject to change.
>
>
Agreed, it's an ugly as sin and completely non-obvious hack.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-05-02 14:48:21 | Re: Logical replication in the same cluster |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-02 14:37:27 | Re: Logical replication in the same cluster |