From: | "Matheus Alcantara" <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Vik Fearing" <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: QUALIFY clause |
Date: | 2025-07-25 12:55:01 |
Message-ID: | DBL5H5N4UD3K.3GLPTCFIN82CI@gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon Jul 21, 2025 at 7:11 PM -03, Vik Fearing wrote:
> That is my preferred grammar, thank you. I have not looked at the C
> code by this can be obtained with a syntax transformation. To wit:
>
>
> SELECT a, b, c
> FROM tab
> QUALIFY wf() OVER () = ?
>
>
> can be rewritten as:
>
>
> SELECT a, b, c
> FROM (
> SELECT a, b, c, wf() OVER () = ? AS qc
> FROM tab
> ) AS q
> WHERE qc
>
>
> and then let the optimizer take over. The standard does this kind of
> thing all over the place; I don't know what the postgres project's
> position on doing things like this are.
>
With this transformation users will see a Subquery plan node even if
it's not present on the original query, is that expected or it can be
confusing to users?
--
Matheus Alcantara
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2025-07-25 12:55:02 | Re: Retail DDL |
Previous Message | Xuneng Zhou | 2025-07-25 12:23:21 | Re: Proposal: Limitations of palloc inside checkpointer |