Re: wCTE behaviour - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: wCTE behaviour
Date
Msg-id 25026.1289660931@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: wCTE behaviour  (Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>)
Responses Re: wCTE behaviour
List pgsql-hackers
Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi> writes:
> On 13 Nov 2010, at 15:41, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
>> Similarly, if a normal CTE called a data-changing function but was
>> nevertheless not referred to, it would still run.

> Actually, it wouldn't.

Indeed, and that was considered a feature when we did it.  I think
that having wCTEs behave arbitrarily differently on this point
might be a bad idea.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die
Next
From: Marko Tiikkaja
Date:
Subject: Re: wCTE behaviour