Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

From: Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
Date: 2019-02-15 02:34:57
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 14/02/2019 16.11, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... so, have we beaten this topic to death yet? Can we make a decision?
> Personally, I'd be happy with either of the last two patch versions
> I posted (that is, either AS [[NOT] MATERIALIZED] or
> AS [MATERIALIZE [ON|OFF]] syntax). But we gotta pick something.

I am happy with either of those.


In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2019-02-15 04:00:44 Re: libpq host/hostaddr/conninfo inconsistencies
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2019-02-15 02:08:41 Re: pg11.1: dsa_area could not attach to segment