From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723 |
Date: | 2008-07-28 23:04:14 |
Message-ID: | 203.1217286254@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> Since the problem is using the result of a WITH clause more than once,
> would it be sufficient to simply detect that case and bail? You don't
> want materialisation is most cases, there's just a few where it is
> needed.
Really? I tried googling to see what other people thought that the
WITH clause was for, and the first relevant hit I got was this one:
http://www.oracle-developer.net/display.php?id=212
which certainly treats it as a key part of the feature.
My thought is that we could optimize away materialization in cases where
we can tell it's not needed (no volatile functions and/or no multiple
scans of the subquery). But not being able to do it means we've
implemented the feature incorrectly.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-07-28 23:09:08 | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723 |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-07-28 22:54:28 | Re: [RFC] Unsigned integer support. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-07-28 23:09:08 | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723 |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2008-07-28 22:24:46 | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723 |