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

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

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
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 16:20:31
Message-ID: AANLkTinGa2_tB4u4tKcUdhNbCDD4mB-LurvcgTMb=F4P@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Right at the moment we dodge that issue by disallowing wCTEs in cursors.
> If we did allow them, then I would say that the wCTEs have to be run to
> completion when the cursor is closed.
>

Does that really dodge anything? Isn't it just the same as running a
query from a client and closing the result without reading to the end?

ExecutorEnd would be called but ExecutorRun would never be called to
the end of the scan.

-- 
greg

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2011-02-26 16:47:45
Subject: Re: Parallel restore checks wrong thread return value?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-02-26 16:10:33
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