Re: SQL2011 and writeable CTE

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SQL2011 and writeable CTE
Date: 2010-11-08 16:31:23
Message-ID: AANLkTikoM5AO6o5Lh72grkFpVj==RjB0d5GNJd6m6Js1@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2010/11/8 Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 2010/11/9 Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> 2010/11/8 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>> 2010/11/8 Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>
>>>> Hmm, this looks very different from our writeable CTEs. And I can see
>>>> many issues like syntax ambiguity and execution order if we support
>>>> it. AFAIK the most significant reason why we are working on CTEs is
>>>> that CTEs are regarded as something like materialized table.
>>>>
>>>> So I think we are going on writeable "CTEs" unless there are no
>>>> objection rather than pursuing the standard.
>>>> Thanks for sharing anyway.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I found, so writeable CTE was implemented in Microsoft SQL server too.
>>> Can be our implementation compatible?
>>>
>>
>> I don't believe MS SQL Server doesn't implement such our writeable
>
> I mean, "I don't believe it implements..." :)

ook :)

Pavel

>
> --
> Hitoshi Harada
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-11-08 16:32:12 Re: Protecting against unexpected zero-pages: proposal
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-11-08 16:16:54 Re: Protecting against unexpected zero-pages: proposal