From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: UPDATE SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT ...) versus rules |
Date: | 2014-06-17 14:02:51 |
Message-ID: | 17030.1403013771@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> Would it not be possible to use WITH here, like:
> WITH bar AS ( ... subselect ... )
> INSERT INTO foolog VALUES (bar.a, bar.b, ...)
Don't think it works if the sub-select is correlated.
Consider something like
UPDATE summary_table s
SET (sumx, sumy) = (SELECT sum(x), sum(y) FROM detail_table d
WHERE d.group = s.group)
and suppose we have a logging rule like the above on summary_table.
You can't push the sub-select into a WITH because it depends on
s.group. With sufficient intelligence you could rewrite the query
entirely, I guess, but no simple transformation is going to cope.
But come to think of it, WITH is already an interesting precedent: if you
look into rewriteHandler.c you'll notice a boatload of corner cases where
the rewriter just throws up its hands for various combinations of rules
and statements containing WITH. So maybe that lends a bit more weight
to Andres' position that it's okay to consider this an unimplemented
feature.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-17 14:08:31 | Re: avoiding tuple copying in btree index builds |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-06-17 13:57:37 | Re: avoiding tuple copying in btree index builds |