Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723
Date: 2008-07-29 00:13:16
Message-ID: 873altr1ib.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
>> Since the problem is using the result of a WITH clause more than
>> once, would it be sufficient to simply detect that case and bail?
>> You don't want materialisation is most cases, there's just a few
>> where it is needed.

Tom> Really? I tried googling to see what other people thought that
Tom> the WITH clause was for, and the first relevant hit I got was
Tom> this one: http://www.oracle-developer.net/display.php?id=212
Tom> which certainly treats it as a key part of the feature.

Try searching for "common table expression".

--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2008-07-29 00:49:38 Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-07-29 00:06:57 Re: Review: DTrace probes (merged version) ver_03

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2008-07-29 06:42:51 Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-07-28 23:18:14 Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723