| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Yoshiyuki Asaba <y-asaba(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Common Table Expressions applied; some issues remain |
| Date: | 2008-10-05 08:25:55 |
| Message-ID: | 87prmfo3cc.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> 2. The patch didn't touch the implicit-RTE code, which means that
>>
>> WITH q AS ( SELECT ... )
>> SELECT q.*
>>
>> will fail even if you've got add_missing_from enabled. I'm inclined
>> to think that this violates the principle of least surprise. On
>> the other hand, add_missing_from is certainly a legacy thing and maybe
>> we shouldn't bother expending any extra code to make it work with
>> new features. Thoughts?
>
> Yes, it's legacy. I wouldn't bother.
The results would be even more suprising if there *is* a table named "q"
though...
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-10-05 08:32:11 | Re: Common Table Expressions applied; some issues remain |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-10-05 06:11:11 | Re: Common Table Expressions applied; some issues remain |