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

From Andrew Gierth
Subject Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
Date
Msg-id 87h8cqf37i.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

 Tom> Also, I thought of a somewhat-related scenario that the code isn't
 Tom> accounting for: you can break the restrictions about single
 Tom> evaluation with nested WITHs, like

I also thought about that. But what I thought about it on reflection
was: if the user explicitly wrote NOT MATERIALIZED, then we should
assume they mean it.

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Bossart, Nathan"
Date:
Subject: Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: COPY FREEZE and setting PD_ALL_VISIBLE/visibility map bits