| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Cave-Ayland <mark(dot)cave-ayland(at)ilande(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Hierarchical Queries - stage 1 |
| Date: | 2006-09-22 14:02:33 |
| Message-ID: | 25922.1158933753@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Mark Cave-Ayland <mark(dot)cave-ayland(at)ilande(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> The main problem I can see with keeping the CTEs outside the rangetable
> is that according to the source, jointree nodes must currently have
> RANGETBLREF nodes as leaf nodes; as I understand it, your suggestion of
> maintaining the CTEs separately would involve something along the lines
> of keeping a separate CTETable and creating some form of CTETBLREF node
> that could be referenced within the jointree.
No, what I'm thinking is that a *reference* to a CTE, from within the
main query's FROM list, would create a "CTERef" RTE and then you'd have
a normal RANGETBLREF node linking to that in the jointree. This solves
the problem of where do you put the alias: on the RTE. What's not clear
to me at this point is whether there can be multiple references in a
query to the same CTE --- if there can, I suspect you must have a data
structure like this.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-22 14:25:58 | Re: 8.3 Development Cycle |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2006-09-22 13:16:53 | 8.3 Development Cycle |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-22 14:44:04 | Re: [PATCHES] Include file in regress.c |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-09-22 11:09:42 | Re: [PATCHES] Include file in regress.c |