From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723 |
Date: | 2008-07-28 17:06:53 |
Message-ID: | 23482.1217264813@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> "Tatsuo" == Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> Tatsuo> Included patches from Yoshiyuki should fix 1) and 2). I also
> Tatsuo> add your SQLs to the regression test. Thanks.
> I think it needs this change in addition; without it, incorrect
> results are returned when you reference a recursive view from within
> the recursive query, due to the RecursionScan nodes becoming linked to
> the wrong tuplestores.
That whole business of using the EState to pass tuplestores back and
forth looks fundamentally broken to me anyway; there's just no way it'll
be certain to link the right nodes together in complicated cases with
multiple recursions. The nodes should be carrying IDs (such as the name
of the WITH item) which they use to search a lookaside list.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-07-28 17:27:21 | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-07-28 17:00:09 | Re: Protocol 3, Execute, maxrows to return, impact? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2008-07-28 17:39:33 | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-28 16:44:24 | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723 |