Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Yoshiyuki Asaba <y-asaba(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, david(at)fetter(dot)org, zb(at)cybertec(dot)at, ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
Date: 2008-05-29 03:34:14
Message-ID: 483E2436.5020306@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Tom,

> I think this patch is plenty complicated enough without adding useless
> restrictive options.

+1 for no additonal GUC options.

--Josh Berkus

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2008-05-29 04:05:13 Estimating recursive query cost
Previous Message Koichi Suzuki 2008-05-29 03:28:15 Re: intercepting WAL writes

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guillaume Smet 2008-05-29 08:41:48 Re: Upcoming back-branch update releases
Previous Message Florian G. Pflug 2008-05-28 23:26:37 Re: Hint Bits and Write I/O