| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Browning <db(at)kavod(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list? |
| Date: | 2012-10-01 16:06:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20121001160619.GU1267@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> If we wanted to relax the fencing, we might need to do it via an SQL
> keyword on the SELECT, to avoid the confusion caused by GUCs.
I like the idea of providing a way for users to request non-fencing,
perhaps only allowed for SELECT CTEs. I don't like the GUC approach. I
also wonder if it'd make sense and/or be possible to have the fence
applied on a per-CTE basis (inside of the same overall query). If we
add a keyword for this and it's not hard to do, I think that'd be a
really neat capability. (No, unlike the OP, I don't have specific use
cases for that offhand, but why limit it to all or nothing for an entire
query..)
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2012-10-01 16:12:41 | Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-01 15:37:21 | Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal |