| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposing WITH ITERATIVE |
| Date: | 2020-04-29 14:33:46 |
| Message-ID: | CADUqk8X_RAAXiugxtzW7_BufTbsbyp9URpXan06Gjnth53au+w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:22 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah the RECURSIVE vs ITERATIVE is a bit of a red herring here. As you
> say, the RECURSIVE keyword doesn't specify the processing but marks the
> fact that the specification of the query is recursive.
>
Agreed. I started thinking through Fabien's response last night.
I think a syntax that would fit better within the existing framework
> would be something like
>
> WITH RECURSIVE t AS (
> SELECT base case
> REPLACE ALL -- instead of UNION ALL
> SELECT recursive case
> )
>
I was originally thinking more along the lines of Fabien's approach, but
this is similarly interesting.
--
Jonah H. Harris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Antonin Houska | 2020-04-29 14:45:20 | Accidental use of the PVC_RECURSE_WINDOWFUNCS flag? |
| Previous Message | James Coleman | 2020-04-29 14:26:12 | Re: Binary search in ScalarArrayOpExpr for OR'd constant arrays |