| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Browning <db(at)kavod(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list? |
| Date: | 2012-10-01 13:09:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_WUiP7kNR1xv3UWXhukfdFL-nCC05eyog=17ghX+z0DJw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1 October 2012 14:05, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Daniel Browning <db(at)kavod(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm wondering if there are any technical/standards constraints that
> are behind the fencing behavior. If there aren't any, maybe an opt-in
> keyword might do the trick -- WITH UNBOXED foo AS (..)?
I may be mistaken, but I think that the fence is described in the SQL standard.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-10-01 13:19:35 | Re: embedded list v3 |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-10-01 13:05:18 | Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list? |