Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
Date: 2019-01-29 20:46:41
Message-ID: 30346.1548794801@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 1:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I propose that we implement and document this as
>> WITH ctename AS [ MATERIALIZE { ON | OFF } ] ( query )

> I hate to bikeshed here, but I think it's better english using that
> style of syntax to say,
> WITH ctename AS [ MATERIALIZATION { ON | OFF } ] ( query )

Hm. Doesn't really seem to fit with our style for options elsewhere;
for instance, EXPLAIN's options are things like ANALYZE ON/OFF and
VERBOSE ON/OFF, not ANALYSIS and VERBOSITY.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2019-01-29 20:51:35 Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2019-01-29 20:36:31 Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs