> I could tolerate telling people to use OFFSET 0 (and documenting it!)
> as a workaround if we can't get something more friendly in.
I agree with that.
> If we go with WITH INLINE then we're likely not solving anything, because
> most people will simply use WITH just like now, and will be subject to the
> fencing without realizing it.
I agree - the default behaviour should be change to match what everybody
expects. The current behaviour should be the exception.
> Yes, and we're missing the opportunity to confirm with what other
> systems do, and the spirit of the SQL language's declare what I want,
> not how to do it, model.
Essentially *all* other systems optimize CTEs the same way they optimize
derived tables. I think even MySQL does it like that in the upcoming 8.0
release.
I have never heard anyone saying that the Postgres implementation is an
advantage and that they would hate to see this disappear. I usually hear
"Why is Postgres doing that? Can't they change that?"
Maybe I have a limited view on this, but from where I stand, simply changing
it would help everybody I know and would not break anything. I don't even
think a replacement for the old behaviour would be necessary.
--
View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/CTE-inlining-tp5958992p5959509.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
