From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses |
Date: | 2020-10-09 09:40:40 |
Message-ID: | 52beaf44-ccc3-0ba1-45c7-74aa251cd6ab@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-09-22 20:29, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> The result is correct. When I tried to use UNION instead UNION ALL, the
> pg crash
I fixed the crash, but UNION [DISTINCT] won't actually work here because
row/record types are not hashable. I'm leaving the partial support in,
but I'm documenting it as currently not supported.
> looks so clause USING in cycle detection is unsupported for DB2 and
> Oracle - the examples from these databases doesn't work on PG without
> modifications
Yeah, the path clause is actually not necessary from a user's
perspective, but it's required for internal bookkeeping. We could
perhaps come up with a mechanism to make it invisible coming out of the
CTE (maybe give the CTE a target list internally), but that seems like a
separate project.
The attached patch fixes the issues you have reported (also the view
issue from the other email). I have also moved the whole rewrite
support to a new file to not blow up rewriteHandler.c so much.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v3-0001-SEARCH-and-CYCLE-clauses.patch | text/plain | 94.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-10-09 09:42:05 | Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2020-10-09 09:31:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |