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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
Date
Msg-id 30346.1548794801@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 1:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I propose that we implement and document this as
>> WITH ctename AS [ MATERIALIZE { ON | OFF } ] ( query )

> I hate to bikeshed here, but I think it's better english using that
> style of syntax to say,
>  WITH ctename AS [ MATERIALIZATION { ON | OFF } ] ( query )

Hm.  Doesn't really seem to fit with our style for options elsewhere;
for instance, EXPLAIN's options are things like ANALYZE ON/OFF and
VERBOSE ON/OFF, not ANALYSIS and VERBOSITY.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0