Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
Date
Msg-id 20190214160209.GA13250@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
List pgsql-hackers
On 2019-Feb-14, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> On 14/02/2019 16:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> > ... so, have we beaten this topic to death yet?  Can we make a decision?
> > 
> > Personally, I'd be happy with either of the last two patch versions
> > I posted (that is, either AS [[NOT] MATERIALIZED] or
> > AS [MATERIALIZE [ON|OFF]] syntax).  But we gotta pick something.
> 
> If we're not really planning to add any more options, I'd register a
> light vote for MATERIALIZED.  It reads easier, seems more grammatically
> correct, and uses an existing word.

+1 for MATERIALIZED, as I proposed in
https://postgr.es/m/20170503173305.fetj4tz7kd56tjlr@alvherre.pgsql

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL insert delay settings