Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 2010-09-14 10:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> My recollection is that whether a CTE is marked RECURSIVE or not affects
>> its scope of visibility, so that confusing the two cases can result in
>> flat-out incorrect parser behavior.

> The worst I can think of is:

> CREATE TABLE foo(a int);

> WITH t AS (SELECT * FROM foo)
> INSERT INTO bar
> WITH RECURSIVE foo (SELECT 1 AS a)
> SELECT * FROM t;

> t will actually be populated with the results of the CTE, not the table foo.

> I don't think this is a huge problem in real life, but if someone thinks 
> otherwise, I think we could just error out if the lists have a different 
> RECURSIVE definition.

Wrong is wrong.  Doesn't matter whether it's "a huge problem in real life".

Why is it so difficult to do this correctly?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: top-level DML under CTEs at 2010-09-14 20:28:33 from Marko Tiikkaja

Responses

• Re: top-level DML under CTEs at 2010-09-15 01:15:12 from Hitoshi Harada

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-09-14 23:26:26
	Subject: Re: Pseudoconstant quals versus the join removal patch
Previous:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2010-09-14 22:49:29
	Subject: Re: top-level DML under CTEs

pgsql-rrreviewers by date

Next:	From: Hitoshi Harada	Date: 2010-09-15 01:04:06
	Subject: Re: top-level DML under CTEs
Previous:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2010-09-14 22:49:29
	Subject: Re: top-level DML under CTEs