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

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
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 04:55:43
Message-ID: 6877.1298696143@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> The first solution that comes to mind is to pay attention to the
> interdependencies of the CTEs, and perform the cleanup in an appropriate
> order (here, the ModifyTable for y needs to be cycled first).

Doh ... actually, we already *are* ordering the CTEs in dependency
order, so it's a one-liner fix to do the shutdowns in reverse order.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-02-26 05:07:40
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL FDW update
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-02-26 03:57:24
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