| From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning? |
| Date: | 2011-02-26 03:16:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20110226031635.GE27388@fetter.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:12:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > What's the effect, if any, on CTEs that depend on each other
> > explicitly?
>
> An error. That would require mutual recursion, which we don't
> support for the SELECT case let alone data-modifying statements.
Sorry that was unclear. Let's imagine there's a DELETE ... RETURNING
in one WITH, and an UPDATE in another that depends on that one. Is
that still allowed?
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 | Tom Lane | 2011-02-26 03:57:24 | Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-26 03:12:02 | Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning? |