Re: wCTE behaviour

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: wCTE behaviour
Date: 2010-11-13 15:08:51
Message-ID: 25026.1289660931@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 13 Nov 2010, at 15:41, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>> Similarly, if a normal CTE called a data-changing function but was
>> nevertheless not referred to, it would still run.

> Actually, it wouldn't.

Indeed, and that was considered a feature when we did it. I think
that having wCTEs behave arbitrarily differently on this point
might be a bad idea.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Tiikkaja 2010-11-13 15:23:34 Re: wCTE behaviour
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-11-13 15:07:21 Re: max_wal_senders must die