Re: CTE optimization fence - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Thomas Kellerer
Subject Re: CTE optimization fence
Date
Msg-id d37c4340-ff95-ffe6-02e7-f4adf0352761@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CTE optimization fence  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: CTE optimization fence  (Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>)
Sv: Re: CTE optimization fence  (Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas@visena.com>)
List pgsql-general
Tom Lane schrieb am 27.06.2018 um 05:48:
>> I see there was some discussion last year about removing the CTE 
>> optimization fence (e.g. 
>> http://www.postgresql-archive.org/CTE-inlining-td5958992.html) but can't 
>> find anything more recent. Does anyone know if this is still under 
>> consideration?
> 
> but we have to settle on a way of controlling it.

+1 from me. 

I am running more and more into situations where people consider this a bug rather than a feature.

FWIW, I think a GUC that switches between the current (mostly unwanted, at least surprising) 
way and one where the CTE is optimized together with the main query would suit "most" people.

For sake of compatibility this could default to the current behaviour


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: CTE optimization fence
Next
From: Rob Sargent
Date:
Subject: Re: CTE optimization fence