Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwaOxwMMqOEgG0BxquW_nnFf=+NB-RGAFb4_YNtbFJQqMw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining  (Serge Rielau <serge@rielau.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 5/5/17 08:43, David Rowley wrote:
> How about we get the ball rolling on this in v10 and pull that part
> out of the docs. If anything that'll buy us a bit more wiggle room to
> change this in v11.
>
> I've attached a proposed patch.

If we just tell them that the thing they might have relied on might go
away, without a replacement to suggest, then we're just confusing and
scaring them, no?

​We'd end up suggesting our OFFSET 0 hack as true protection.  If they know for a fact that their use of CTE for its barrier properties is not supported they are also more likely to document intentional usage with something like:   "-- CHANGE THIS ONCE VERSION 11 IS RELEASED!!! --" which would make finding the call sites that need to add the new "MATERIALIZED" ​keyword much easier.

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] idea: custom log_line_prefix components besidesapplication_name
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal psql \gdesc