| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wCTE behaviour |
| Date: | 2010-11-14 20:06:19 |
| Message-ID: | 4CE0413B.1010106@cs.helsinki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2010-11-14 8:51 PM +0200, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> On 2010-11-14 19:35, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Marko Tiikkaja
>> <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:
>>> In my opinion, all of these should have the same effect: DELETE all rows
>>> from "foo". Any other option means we're going to have trouble predicting
>>> how a query is going to behave.
>> I think it's clear that's the only sensible behavior.
> What if CTE's ever get input parameters?
What about input parameters?
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-11-14 20:45:00 | Re: max_wal_senders must die |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-11-14 19:41:51 | Re: a new problem in MERGE |