Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2012-10-01 16:12:41
Subject: Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-10-01 15:37:21
Subject: Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group