From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch |
Date: | 2010-02-03 16:49:42 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f071002030849p6a470565i5938eb43207881e8@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Marko Tiikkaja
<marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:
>> In ExecTopLevelStmtIsReadOnly, you might perhaps want to rephase the
>> comment in a way that doesn't use the word "Ehm." Like maybe: "Even
>> if this function returns true, the statement might still contain
>> INSERT,
>> UPDATE, or DELETE statements within a CTE; we only check the top-level
>> statement." Also, there should be a newline immediately before the
>> function name, per our usual style conventions.
>
> That comment tries to emphasize the fact that I can't think of any
> reasonable name for that particular function. If the name looks OK, I
> can update the comment.
Name seems fine. Just fix the comment.
>> The limitations of INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE-within-WITH should be
>> documented somewhere: top level CTE only, and no DO ALSO or
>> conditional DO INSTEAD rules. If we don't intend to remove this
>> limitation in a future release, we should probably also document that.
>> I believe there are some other caveats that we've discussed before,
>> too, though I'm not sure if they're still true. Stuff like:
>>
>> - CTEs will be executed to completion in sequential order before the
>> main statement begins execution
>> - each CTE will see the results of CTEs already executed, and the main
>> statement will see the results of all CTEs
>> - but queries within each CTE still won't see their own updates (a
>> reference to whatever section of the manual we talk about this in
>> would probably be good)
>> - possible pitfalls of CTEs not being pipelined
>
> Right. The documentation in its current state is definitely lacking.
> I've tried to focus all the time I have in making this patch technically
> good.
Well, technically good is certainly a good place to start. :-) Of
course, we need the docs, too. Thanks for your work on this.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-03 16:50:43 | Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL |
Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-02-03 16:47:58 | Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch |