Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 1:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 05:05:32PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yeah, I thought about that too, but it doesn't seem like an improvement.
> >> If the query is very long (which isn't unlikely) I think people would
> >> prefer to see the option(s) up front.
>
> > Having these options at the front of the WITH clause looks more
> > natural to me.
>
> Well, we've managed to get agreement on the semantics of this thing,
> let's not get hung up on the syntax details.
>
> I propose that we implement and document this as
>
> WITH ctename AS [ MATERIALIZE { ON | OFF } ] ( query )
>
> which is maybe a bit clunky but not awful, and it would leave room
> to generalize it to "AS [ optionname optionvalue [ , ... ] ]" if we
> ever need to. Looking at the precedent of e.g. EXPLAIN, we could
> probably allow just "MATERIALIZE" as well, with the boolean value
> defaulting to true.

I hate to bikeshed here, but I think it's better english using that
style of syntax to say,
WITH ctename AS [ MATERIALIZATION { ON | OFF } ] ( query )

merlin