| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ilya Shkuratov <motr(dot)ilya(at)ya(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CTE inlining |
| Date: | 2017-05-02 14:13:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0yOHGWAaTaHN9PUEFLCqGbksEUtLvuH4ruHANH4SovYWg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-04-30 07:19:21 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> why we cannot to introduce GUC option - enable_cteoptfence ?
>
> Doesn't really solve the issue, and we've generally shied away from GUCs
> that influence behaviour after a few bad experiences. What if you want
> one CTE inlined, but another one not?
Yeah. Are we absolutely opposed to SQL syntax against WITH that
allows or disallows fencing? for example,
WITH [MATERIALIZED]
Pushing people to OFFSET 0 is a giant step backwards IMO, and as in
implementation detail is also subject to change.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-05-02 14:14:23 | Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling) |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-05-02 14:08:41 | Re: logical replication and PANIC during shutdown checkpoint in publisher |