Tom Lane wrote:
> ISTM that this should be represented using an RTE_SUBQUERY node in the
> outer query; the alias attaches to that node, not to the VALUES itself.
> So I don't think you need that alias field in the jointree entry either.
> If we stick with the plan of representing VALUES as if it were SELECT *
> FROM (valuesnode), then this approach would make the second query above
> have a structure like
> .rtable -> RTE_SUBQUERY
> .subquery -> Query
> .jointree -> Values
> (leaving out a ton of detail of course, but those are the key nodes).
OK, I'll go try to wrap my mind around that this evening and see where
it takes me.
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Markus Schiltknecht||Date: 2006-07-25 11:33:44|
|Subject: Re: Replication - super-draft|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-07-24 17:09:29|
|Subject: Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features?) |
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2006-07-24 21:23:53|
|Subject: Re: effective_cache_size is a real?|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2006-07-24 21:19:43|
|Subject: Re: TODO: Mark change-on-restart-only values in|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2006-07-24 22:27:29|
|Subject: Re: The vacuum-ignore-vacuum patch|
|Previous:||From: Robert Lor||Date: 2006-07-24 21:00:46|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Generic Monitoring Framework with DTrace patch|