Re: [HACKERS] Mapping MERGE onto CTEs (Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Craig Ringer
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Mapping MERGE onto CTEs (Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11)
Date
Msg-id CAMsr+YGnpTmp0smJB2Je_FfFtWq_oc3AgVq72zXtnHCjvcfzog@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Mapping MERGE onto CTEs (Re: MERGE SQL Statement forPG11)  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2 November 2017 at 01:14, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> Nico Williams wrote:
>
>> As an aside, I'd like to be able to control which CTEs are view-like and
>> which are table-like.  In SQLite3, for example, they are all view-like,
>> and the optimizer will act accordingly, whereas in PG they are all
>> table-like, and thus optimizer barriers.
>
> There was a short and easy to grasp (OK, maybe not) discussion on the
> topic of CTEs acting differently.  I think the consensus is that for
> CTEs that are read-only and do not use functions that aren't immutable,
> they may be considered for inlining.
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5351711493487900@web53g.yandex.ru

Yep. All theoretical though, I don't think anyone (myself included)
stumped up a patch.


-- Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
Next
From: amul sul
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning