Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Date: 2011-02-26 03:16:36
Message-ID: 20110226031635.GE27388@fetter.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:12:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > What's the effect, if any, on CTEs that depend on each other
> > explicitly?
> 
> An error.  That would require mutual recursion, which we don't
> support for the SELECT case let alone data-modifying statements.

Sorry that was unclear.  Let's imagine there's a DELETE ... RETURNING
in one WITH, and an UPDATE in another that depends on that one.  Is
that still allowed?

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-02-26 03:57:24
Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-02-26 03:12:02
Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group