Re: oversight in EphemeralNamedRelation support

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hugo Mercier <hugo(dot)mercier(at)oslandia(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: oversight in EphemeralNamedRelation support
Date: 2017-10-16 20:50:41
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> But I see very
>> little case for allowing CTEs to capture such references, because surely
>> we are never going to allow that to do anything useful, and we have
>> several years of precedent now that they don't capture.

> For what it's worth, SQL Server allows DML in CTEs like us but went
> the other way on this. Not only are its CTEs in scope as DML targets,
> it actually lets you update them in cases where a view would be
> updatable, rewriting as base table updates. I'm not suggesting that
> we should do that too (unless of course it shows up in a future
> standard), just pointing it out as a curiosity.

Interesting. Still, given that we have quite a few years of precedent
that CTEs aren't in scope as DML targets, I'm disinclined to change
our semantics unless the point does show up in the standard.

I've not heard anyone speaking against the choices you made in your
prior message, so I'll go review your v3 patch, and push unless
I find problems.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-10-16 20:54:19 Re: coverage analysis improvements
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-10-16 20:19:56 Re: Aggregate FILTER option is broken in v10