Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

pá 11. 1. 2019 v 20:11 odesílatel Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
napsal:

> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 2:04 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > > Maybe we could consider a more extensible syntax that is attached to
> > > the contained SELECT rather than the containing WITH. Then CTEs would
> > > be less special; there'd be a place to put hints controlling top-level
> > > queries, subselects, views etc too (perhaps eventually join hints,
> > > parallelism hints etc, but "materialize this" would be just another
> > > one of those things). That'd be all-in.
> >
> > I think you have some purity arguments here, but the likelihood of us
> > developing a full-blown solution is not that high, and the lack of
> > inlinable CTEs is *really* hurting us. As long as the design doesn't
> > block a full solution, if we go there, I think it's a very acceptable
> > blemish in comparison to the benefits we'd get.
>
> Also, it seems to me that this is properly a property of the
> individual WITH clause, not the query as a whole.
>
> I mean I suppose we could do
>
> WITH or_with_out_you OPTIONS (materialized false) AS (SELECT 'mariah
> carey') SELECT ...
>
> That'd allow for extensibility, have the write scope, and look like
> what we do elsewhere. It looks a little less elegant than
>
> WITH cte_name [[NOT] MATERIALIZED] AS (query) main_query...
>
> ...but maybe elegance for extensibility is a good trade.
>

I like this explicit syntax (both variant can be used). From my
perspective, it is much better than hints in comments.

Regards

Pavel

>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>