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

Re: wCTE behaviour

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: wCTE behaviour
Date: 2011-02-25 16:12:31
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 2011-02-25 1:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why is it necessary to hack the portal logic at all?  The patch seems to
>> work for me without that.  (I've fixed quite a few bugs though, so maybe
>> what this is really doing is masking a problem elsewhere.)

> Without hacking it broke when PQdescribePrepared was called on a 
> prepared query like:


> Not sure if that's an actual problem, but it seemed like something worht 
> fixing.

I can't replicate such a problem here --- do you have a concrete test
case?  ISTM the issue would only have been a problem back when you
were trying to generate multiple PlannedStmts from a query like the
above.  The current implementation with everything in one plantree
really ought to look just like a SELECT so far as the portal code
is concerned.

>> Also, why are we forbidding wCTEs in cursors?  Given the current
>> definitions, that case seems to work fine too: the wCTEs will be
>> executed as soon as you fetch something from the cursor.  Are you
>> just worried about not allowing a case that might be hard to support
>> later?

> Honestly, I have no idea.  It might be a leftover from the previous 
> design.  If it looks like it's easy to support, then go for it.

Right now I'm thinking that it is best to continue to forbid it.
If we go over to the less-sequential implementation that I'm advocating
in another thread, the timing of the updates would become a lot less
predictable than I say above.  If we refuse it for now, we can always
remove the restriction later, but the other way is more painful.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marko TiikkajaDate: 2011-02-25 16:24:04
Subject: Re: wCTE behaviour
Previous:From: Marko TiikkajaDate: 2011-02-25 16:03:46
Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?

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