Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Date: 2011-02-26 03:12:02
Message-ID: 2681.1298689922@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> What's the effect, if any, on CTEs that depend on each other
> explicitly?

An error. That would require mutual recursion, which we don't
support for the SELECT case let alone data-modifying statements.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2011-02-26 03:16:36 Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Previous Message David Fetter 2011-02-26 02:50:27 Re: wCTE: about the name of the feature