From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: wCTE behaviour |
Date: | 2010-11-12 16:12:26 |
Message-ID: | 20101112161226.GA18948@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:50:52AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> On 2010-11-11 17:50, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> >>> Just to be clear, the main point is whether they see the data
> >>> modifications or not. The simplest case to point out this behaviour is:
> >>>
> >>> WITH t AS (DELETE FROM foo)
> >>> SELECT * FROM foo;
> >>>
> >>> And the big question is: what state of "foo" should the SELECT
> >>> statement see?
> >
> >> Since t is not referenced in the query, foo should not be deleted at
> >> all,
> >
> > Yeah, that's another interesting question: should we somehow force
> > unreferenced CTEs to be evaluated anyhow? Now that I think about it,
> > there was also some concern about the possibility of the outer query
> > not reading the CTE all the way to the end, ie
> >
> > WITH t AS (DELETE FROM foo RETURNING *)
> > SELECT * FROM t LIMIT 1;
> >
> > How many rows does this delete? I think we concluded that we should
> > force the DELETE to be run to conclusion even if the outer query didn't
> > read it all. From an implementation standpoint that makes it more
> > attractive to do the DELETE first and stick its results in a tuplestore
> > --- but I still think we should view that as an implementation detail,
> > not as part of the specification.
>
> Yeah, I think we have to force any DML statements in CTEs to run to
> completion, whether we need the results or not, and even if they are
> unreferenced. Otherwise it's going to be really confusing, I fear.
Yes, and as we add more things--COPY is the first but probably not the
last--to CTEs, this "no action-at-a-distance" behavior will become
even more important.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | mark | 2010-11-12 16:27:20 | Re: locales and encodings Oh MY! |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-11-12 15:51:53 | Re: wCTE behaviour |