| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
| Date: | 2019-01-17 15:52:19 |
| Message-ID: | 14326.1547740339@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> writes:
> On 1/11/19 8:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> WITH cte_name [[NOT] MATERIALIZED] AS (query) main_query...
> Hm, when would one want "NOT MATERIALIZED"? I am not sure I see the
> usefulness of forcing inlining other than if we by default do not inline
> when a CTE is referenced multiple times.
I'm also concerned about what we do if the user says NOT MATERIALIZED
but there are semantic or implementation reasons not to inline. Either
we throw an error or do something the user didn't expect, and neither
is very nice. So I'm not in favor of having that option.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-01-17 15:57:54 | Re: Feature: temporary materialized views |
| Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2019-01-17 15:52:04 | Re: Feature: temporary materialized views |