Re: wCTE behaviour

From: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: wCTE behaviour
Date: 2010-11-13 13:28:35
Message-ID: 4CDE9283.3000304@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2010-11-12 16:51, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, that's another interesting question: should we somehow force
>> unreferenced CTEs to be evaluated anyhow?
> Yes.
After a night's sleep I'm still thinking no. Arguments:
1) the name "Common Table Expression" suggests that t must be regarded
as an expression, hence syntactically / proof theoretic and not as a
table, set of rows / model theoretic. I.e. it is not a "Common Table".
2) The expressions can be referenced zero, one or more times. To me it
therefore makes the most sense that a DML expressions that is defined
but not references has no effect. Referenced once: run the plan once.
Referenced again: run the plan again.

What should the result be of
WITH t AS (INSERT INTO foo SELECT nextval('seq') RETURNING *)
SELECT * FROM t
UNION
SELECT * FROM t;

1 or 1,2 ?

regards,
Yeb Havinga

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2010-11-13 13:35:54 Re: duplicate connection failure messages
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-11-13 04:27:53 Re: max_wal_senders must die