| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch |
| Date: | 2008-10-01 03:10:51 |
| Message-ID: | 1376.1222830651@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Here are the results of a couple more days' hacking on the CTE patch.
* I cleaned up the processing in the second part of parse_cte.c, where
we are trying to check for validity of a recursive query. The
conditions that it's checking for are not exactly the same as what was
being looked for previously, so this could do with a bit of review.
* I got rid of the kluges in the executor in favor of treating the
working table as a PARAM_EXEC Param. Also renamed the plan node
types to RecursiveUnion and WorkTableScan --- I'm not wedded to these
choices, but they seemed more transparent than the former names.
* I have not yet tackled the problem of ensuring single evaluation of
CTEs, but there's a few bits of infrastructure for it.
There are various small loose ends denoted by XXX in the patch, but
the main remaining issue is definitely the single-evaluation business.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| cte-0930.patch.gz | application/octet-stream | 43.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-01 04:09:28 | Re: Bad error message |
| Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2008-10-01 02:36:53 | Re: Bad error message |