On 05/02/2017 10:13 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> On 2017-04-30 07:19:21 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> why we cannot to introduce GUC option - enable_cteoptfence ?
>> Doesn't really solve the issue, and we've generally shied away from GUCs
>> that influence behaviour after a few bad experiences. What if you want
>> one CTE inlined, but another one not?
> Yeah. Are we absolutely opposed to SQL syntax against WITH that
> allows or disallows fencing? for example,
>
> WITH [MATERIALIZED]
>
> Pushing people to OFFSET 0 is a giant step backwards IMO, and as in
> implementation detail is also subject to change.
>
>
Agreed, it's an ugly as sin and completely non-obvious hack.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
