| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mapping MERGE onto CTEs (Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11) |
| Date: | 2017-11-02 08:06:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsr+YGnpTmp0smJB2Je_FfFtWq_oc3AgVq72zXtnHCjvcfzog@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2 November 2017 at 01:14, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Nico Williams wrote:
>
>> As an aside, I'd like to be able to control which CTEs are view-like and
>> which are table-like. In SQLite3, for example, they are all view-like,
>> and the optimizer will act accordingly, whereas in PG they are all
>> table-like, and thus optimizer barriers.
>
> There was a short and easy to grasp (OK, maybe not) discussion on the
> topic of CTEs acting differently. I think the consensus is that for
> CTEs that are read-only and do not use functions that aren't immutable,
> they may be considered for inlining.
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5351711493487900@web53g.yandex.ru
Yep. All theoretical though, I don't think anyone (myself included)
stumped up a patch.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | amul sul | 2017-11-02 08:15:22 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-11-02 08:05:48 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |