From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
Date: | 2019-01-12 05:51:22 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAb+Mj2Nw9skKzokhF_xPNTCKFD_vF-uD4zXdimLhHKNg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
pá 11. 1. 2019 v 20:11 odesílatel Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
napsal:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 2:04 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > > Maybe we could consider a more extensible syntax that is attached to
> > > the contained SELECT rather than the containing WITH. Then CTEs would
> > > be less special; there'd be a place to put hints controlling top-level
> > > queries, subselects, views etc too (perhaps eventually join hints,
> > > parallelism hints etc, but "materialize this" would be just another
> > > one of those things). That'd be all-in.
> >
> > I think you have some purity arguments here, but the likelihood of us
> > developing a full-blown solution is not that high, and the lack of
> > inlinable CTEs is *really* hurting us. As long as the design doesn't
> > block a full solution, if we go there, I think it's a very acceptable
> > blemish in comparison to the benefits we'd get.
>
> Also, it seems to me that this is properly a property of the
> individual WITH clause, not the query as a whole.
>
> I mean I suppose we could do
>
> WITH or_with_out_you OPTIONS (materialized false) AS (SELECT 'mariah
> carey') SELECT ...
>
> That'd allow for extensibility, have the write scope, and look like
> what we do elsewhere. It looks a little less elegant than
>
> WITH cte_name [[NOT] MATERIALIZED] AS (query) main_query...
>
> ...but maybe elegance for extensibility is a good trade.
>
I like this explicit syntax (both variant can be used). From my
perspective, it is much better than hints in comments.
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | leif | 2019-01-12 05:59:54 | Re: BUG #15589: Due to missing wal, restore ends prematurely and opens database for read/write |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-01-12 04:46:32 | O_DIRECT for relations and SLRUs (Prototype) |