Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Date
Msg-id AANLkTinGa2_tB4u4tKcUdhNbCDD4mB-LurvcgTMb=F4P@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Right at the moment we dodge that issue by disallowing wCTEs in cursors.
> If we did allow them, then I would say that the wCTEs have to be run to
> completion when the cursor is closed.
>

Does that really dodge anything? Isn't it just the same as running a
query from a client and closing the result without reading to the end?

ExecutorEnd would be called but ExecutorRun would never be called to
the end of the scan.

-- 
greg


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel restore checks wrong thread return value?