Thread: "writable CTEs"
As a side note, I think the term "writable CTE" is a misnomer. The CTE is not writable. The CTE is the result of a write operation. A writable CTE would look like this: WITH foo AS (SELECT ...) UPDATE foo SET ... a bit like an updatable view. AFAICT, the current patch doesn't use the term, so there is no problem, but just for those who are preparing propaganda and such.
On 2010-12-22 8:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > As a side note, I think the term "writable CTE" is a misnomer. The CTE > is not writable. The CTE is the result of a write operation. > > A writable CTE would look like this: > > WITH foo AS (SELECT ...) UPDATE foo SET ... > > a bit like an updatable view. > > AFAICT, the current patch doesn't use the term, so there is no problem, > but just for those who are preparing propaganda and such. I think I've used "DML WITH" in the patch, but I don't like that either. Naming this feature seems to be quite a challenge. I'd prefer something short but easily understandable, but those two might be mutually exclusive. Regards, Marko Tiikkaja
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: > I'd prefer something short but easily understandable, but those two might be > mutually exclusive. Volatile CTE's doesn't add any more clarity either. Maybe "Round Trip Reduction" CTE's. :) -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: > I think I've used "DML WITH" in the patch, but I don't like that > either. Naming this feature seems to be quite a challenge. > > I'd prefer something short but easily understandable, but those > two might be mutually exclusive. How about?: DML CTEs DML-based CTEs RETURNING-based CTEs -Kevin
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:54:39PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: > > > I think I've used "DML WITH" in the patch, but I don't like that > > either. Naming this feature seems to be quite a challenge. > > > > I'd prefer something short but easily understandable, but those > > two might be mutually exclusive. > > How about?: > > DML CTEs > DML-based CTEs > RETURNING-based CTEs When I designed the feature, I'd planned to be able to put most kinds of statement inside or outside the CTE, not just DML writes. You can imagine cases for DCL (GRANT/REVOKE based on a catalog query) or DDL (partition management), and I did. We could call them, "Expanded CTEs," but that only freezes the prior norm making them read-only, so I think "Writeable CTEs" captures it pretty well. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On ons, 2010-12-22 at 20:44 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On 2010-12-22 8:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > As a side note, I think the term "writable CTE" is a misnomer. The CTE > > is not writable. The CTE is the result of a write operation. > > > > A writable CTE would look like this: > > > > WITH foo AS (SELECT ...) UPDATE foo SET ... > > > > a bit like an updatable view. > > > > AFAICT, the current patch doesn't use the term, so there is no problem, > > but just for those who are preparing propaganda and such. > > I think I've used "DML WITH" in the patch, but I don't like that either. > Naming this feature seems to be quite a challenge. *Writing* CTEs is more accurate.
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:47:14PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On ons, 2010-12-22 at 20:44 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > > On 2010-12-22 8:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > As a side note, I think the term "writable CTE" is a misnomer. The CTE > > > is not writable. The CTE is the result of a write operation. > > > > > > A writable CTE would look like this: > > > > > > WITH foo AS (SELECT ...) UPDATE foo SET ... > > > > > > a bit like an updatable view. > > > > > > AFAICT, the current patch doesn't use the term, so there is no problem, > > > but just for those who are preparing propaganda and such. > > > > I think I've used "DML WITH" in the patch, but I don't like that either. > > Naming this feature seems to be quite a challenge. > > *Writing* CTEs is more accurate. OK :) On the bright side, we have a decades-long tradition of horrible names on this project, one early example of which is a name that abbreviates the phrase, 'POST-"interactive GRaphics REtrieval System."' ;) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else. Is there interest in correcting this, by putting "CTEs" or "Common table expressions" in parenthesis after "WITH queries" in the docs at certain select places? I could write a documentation patch. -- Regards, Peter Geoghegan
Peter Geoghegan wrote: > It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even > call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think > that that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else. > > Is there interest in correcting this, by putting "CTEs" or "Common > table expressions" in parenthesis after "WITH queries" in the docs > at certain select places? I could write a documentation patch. Personally, I think it's worth fixing. This sort of disjunction between code and documentation can cause confusing for someone trying to get started on hacking. It is an exception to the otherwise excellent documentation of both the product and the code. -Kevin
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:19:47AM +0000, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even > call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that > that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else. Agreed. > Is there interest in correcting this, by putting "CTEs" or "Common > table expressions" in parenthesis after "WITH queries" in the docs > at certain select places? I could write a documentation patch. +1 :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 9:28 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:19:47AM +0000, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even >> call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that >> that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else. > > Agreed. > >> Is there interest in correcting this, by putting "CTEs" or "Common >> table expressions" in parenthesis after "WITH queries" in the docs >> at certain select places? I could write a documentation patch. > > +1 :) Would it make sense to work a section into the documentation explaining the semantics of CTEs? e.g., evaluate-once. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 09:51:01PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 9:28 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:19:47AM +0000, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even > >> call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that > >> that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else. > > > > Agreed. > > > >> Is there interest in correcting this, by putting "CTEs" or "Common > >> table expressions" in parenthesis after "WITH queries" in the docs > >> at certain select places? I could write a documentation patch. > > > > +1 :) > > Would it make sense to work a section into the documentation > explaining the semantics of CTEs? e.g., evaluate-once. Yep. It should probably go where "WITH Queries" is now, i.e. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/queries-with.html would become (doesn't exist yet): http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/queries-common-table-expression.html Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On 28 December 2010 01:09, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Personally, I think it's worth fixing. This sort of disjunction > between code and documentation can cause confusing for someone > trying to get started on hacking. It is an exception to the > otherwise excellent documentation of both the product and the code. Hmm. Having looked at the relevant sgml file, queries.sgml, common table expressions appear at one point: <indexterm> <primary>common table expression</primary> <see>WITH</see> </indexterm> This indicates that the term common table expression should be indexed (the dead tree way), which isn't much use for the majority of users that access the docs on the web. This term doesn't appear in the html source. Perhaps whatever infrastructure we use to render the sgml files as html for dot org should produce keyword meta tags for indexed terms, in case anyone searches the docs using Altavista. More seriously, if we did this I imagine we'd see WITH Queries (for example) in the first page of results if we search for "common table expression" from dot org directly. The fact that whatever docbook tool we use doesn't already do this does suggests that it might not be such a good idea. It may not be worth the effort. I've cc'd Thom Brown to see what he thinks. Attached documentation patch should make things clearer. I haven't changed the "queries-with" section to "queries-common-table-expression" per David's suggestion for the sake of stability. I hesitate to change it without reaching a consensus - will this break a lot of links? The main change I've made is: "WITH queries, also referred to as Common table expressions or CTEs, provide a way to write subqueries for use as part of a larger query". I'm concerned that this might not be strictly correct, because the term "WITH query" may not be exactly equivalent to the term "CTE" - WITH queries are comprised of one or more CTEs, plus a main query. Or are they? Comments? -- Regards, Peter Geoghegan
Attachment
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 03:49:16AM +0000, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On 28 December 2010 01:09, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > > Personally, I think it's worth fixing. This sort of disjunction > > between code and documentation can cause confusing for someone > > trying to get started on hacking. It is an exception to the > > otherwise excellent documentation of both the product and the code. > > Hmm. Having looked at the relevant sgml file, queries.sgml, common > table expressions appear at one point: > > <indexterm> > <primary>common table expression</primary> > <see>WITH</see> > </indexterm> > > This indicates that the term common table expression should be > indexed (the dead tree way), which isn't much use for the majority > of users that access the docs on the web. This term doesn't appear > in the html source. Perhaps whatever infrastructure we use to render > the sgml files as html for dot org should produce keyword meta tags > for indexed terms, in case anyone searches the docs using Altavista. > More seriously, if we did this I imagine we'd see WITH Queries (for > example) in the first page of results if we search for "common table > expression" from dot org directly. The fact that whatever docbook > tool we use doesn't already do this does suggests that it might not > be such a good idea. It may not be worth the effort. I've cc'd Thom > Brown to see what he thinks. > > Attached documentation patch should make things clearer. I haven't > changed the "queries-with" section to > "queries-common-table-expression" per David's suggestion for the > sake of stability. I hesitate to change it without reaching a > consensus - will this break a lot of links? I don't see how people can be relying on links to 9.1-to-be's documentation. > The main change I've made is: "WITH queries, also referred to as > Common table expressions or CTEs, provide a way to write subqueries > for use as part of a larger query". I'm concerned that this might > not be strictly correct, because the term "WITH query" may not be > exactly equivalent to the term "CTE" - WITH queries are comprised of > one or more CTEs, plus a main query. Or are they? They are. :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:45 AM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > I don't see how people can be relying on links to 9.1-to-be's > documentation. Well, it's always handy when the filenames are the same across versions. Ever looked at the 9.0 documentation for something and then modified the URL to see what it looked like in 8.1 or something? >> The main change I've made is: "WITH queries, also referred to as >> Common table expressions or CTEs, provide a way to write subqueries >> for use as part of a larger query". I'm concerned that this might >> not be strictly correct, because the term "WITH query" may not be >> exactly equivalent to the term "CTE" - WITH queries are comprised of >> one or more CTEs, plus a main query. Or are they? > > They are. :) No, actually I think Peter has it right. A query with one or more common table expressions is a WITH-query. This is a subtle difference but could affect the way that things are phrased in the documentation. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Excerpts from David Fetter's message of mar dic 28 02:45:11 -0300 2010: > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 03:49:16AM +0000, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > Attached documentation patch should make things clearer. I haven't > > changed the "queries-with" section to > > "queries-common-table-expression" per David's suggestion for the > > sake of stability. I hesitate to change it without reaching a > > consensus - will this break a lot of links? > > I don't see how people can be relying on links to 9.1-to-be's > documentation. If you change it to give it a new name, the old name disappears. It's a little thing but we've gotten complaints about links disappearing from one version to another. (Personally this has given me reason to think that the "/current" link to docs are a bad idea). -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
On 28 December 2010 12:09, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:45 AM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: >> I don't see how people can be relying on links to 9.1-to-be's >> documentation. > > Well, it's always handy when the filenames are the same across > versions. Ever looked at the 9.0 documentation for something and then > modified the URL to see what it looked like in 8.1 or something? I do this all the time. Anyway, I intend for this doc patch to be backported to 8.4 as a bugfix, which is part of the reason why it isn't invasive - it's just a clarification. Clearly if it makes sense for 9.1, it makes just as much sense for 9.0 and 8.4. > No, actually I think Peter has it right. A query with one or more > common table expressions is a WITH-query. This is a subtle difference > but could affect the way that things are phrased in the documentation. Attached is a new patch written with this consideration in mind. It also has an acronym.sgml entry for CTE, which was absent from my earlier patch. I think David actually agreed that I was right to have doubts. -- Regards, Peter Geoghegan
Attachment
On tis, 2010-12-28 at 00:19 +0000, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even > call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that > that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else. I think "WITH query" or "WITH clause" is more understandable than CTE, which to me is a term that has no relationship with anything else.
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On tis, 2010-12-28 at 00:19 +0000, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even
>> call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that
>> that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else.
> I think "WITH query" or "WITH clause" is more understandable than CTE,
> which to me is a term that has no relationship with anything else.
I'm with Peter on that. CTE is a completely meaningless term to most
users.
As for the problem at hand, couldn't we use "WITH ... RETURNING", or
some other phrase based on what users actually see/write? DML has
the same problem as CTE, namely it's just another damn TLA. It may
be one that more people have heard of, but that doesn't make it
particularly attractive.
regards, tom lane
On 28 December 2010 14:53, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I'm with Peter on that. CTE is a completely meaningless term to most > users. I don't believe that that's the case. If CTE is a completely meaningless term to most users, WITH query is even more meaningless. I never refer to WITH queries in conversation, and I have never heard someone else do so. I have often talked about CTEs though. Besides, I'm not suggesting that we should completely change the title, or change the section name at all, or change any existing text from the docs. The doc patch is just a clarification that I believe will be useful. If I search for "common table expressions" on Wikipedia, I am sent to the common table expressions article, without any re-direction. The article doesn't mention "with query" as a synonym of CTE at any point. If I search for "With query", the first page of results (20 articles) doesn't have anything about CTEs at all. The situation with Google is similar. The situation with postgresql.org is similar, except that searching for CTE there is fairly useless too. Granted, all of this may have something to do with the ambiguity of the term "with query" in a more general context, but the fact that I never hear the term in conversation probably has something to do with that too. -- Regards, Peter Geoghegan
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 04:35:26PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tis, 2010-12-28 at 00:19 +0000, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even > > call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that > > that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else. > > I think "WITH query" or "WITH clause" is more understandable than CTE, > which to me is a term that has no relationship with anything else. Common Table Expression, or CTE for short, is the standard terminology, and I don't just mean SQL:2008. It's standard in DB2, Drizzle, Firebird, HSQLDB, Informix, Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, and Sybase SQL Anywhere, at a minimum. "WITH query" is a pure PostgreSQL invention, and not a super helpful one to the vast majority of users. Please bear in mind that if this is to remain a successful project, the vast majority of users are *future* users, not current or past ones. We don't talk about "Subquery queries" or "FULL JOIN queries" and give them their own doc section, nor should we. We should instead refactor the docs to point to CTEs in the appropriate places, and it's my hope that those places will increase over time. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On tis, 2010-12-28 at 16:04 +0000, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > If I search for "common table expressions" on Wikipedia, I am sent to > the common table expressions article, without any re-direction. The > article doesn't mention "with query" as a synonym of CTE at any point. > If I search for "With query", the first page of results (20 articles) > doesn't have anything about CTEs at all. Apparently, the term "common table expression" comes from Microsoft and IBM. If you search for "SELECT WITH clause" you get a bunch of Oracle links.
On tis, 2010-12-28 at 09:31 -0800, David Fetter wrote: > Common Table Expression, or CTE for short, is the standard > terminology, and I don't just mean SQL:2008. It's standard in DB2, > Drizzle, Firebird, HSQLDB, Informix, Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, and > Sybase SQL Anywhere, at a minimum. > > "WITH query" is a pure PostgreSQL invention, and not a super helpful > one to the vast majority of users. The phrase "common table expression" does not appear anywhere in the SQL standard. The standard uses the grammar symbol <with clause>.
On 28 December 2010 20:07, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > The phrase "common table expression" does not appear anywhere in the SQL > standard. The standard uses the grammar symbol <with clause>. I think we're losing sight of the issue a bit here. No one is proposing that we call WITH queries common table expressions. As I think we all agree, the term "WITH query" and "common table expression" are not synonymous. A WITH query is comprised of one or more common table expressions, plus a conventional SELECT query. All that I'm asking is that we /specify/ that the "subqueries" already mentioned in the docs are common table expressions. This terminology is less confusing and ambiguous, is demonstrably already in widespread use, and will probably lay the groundwork for whatever name we choose for wCTEs. I think that it makes sense to change the title of the relevant section from "WITH Queries" to "WITH Queries (Common Table Expressions)" because CTEs are the defining characteristic of WITH queries, and, as I've said, the term "common table expression" has mindshare in a way that "WITH query" clearly doesn't. -- Regards, Peter Geoghegan
On 29/12/10 03:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:1293546926.9478.1.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com" type="cite"><prewrap="">On tis, 2010-12-28 at 00:19 +0000, Peter Geoghegan wrote: </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap=""> I think "WITH query" or "WITH clause" is more understandable than CTE, which to me is a term that has no relationship with anything else. </pre></blockquote><font size="-1"><font face="Helvetica"><br /> Peter's comment certainly resonates with me. When I firstheard about this "CTE" business I had to go to the web to discover that they were components of the WITH clause - whichI was familiar with from my DB2 days... <br /><br /> regards<br /><br /> Mark<br /></font></font>
On 2010-12-29 09:16, Mark Kirkwood wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:4D1AEE5D.6070403@catalyst.net.nz" type="cite"></blockquote>On 29/12/10 03:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:1293546926.9478.1.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com"type="cite"><pre wrap="">On tis, 2010-12-28 at 00:19 +0000, PeterGeoghegan wrote: </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">I think "WITH query" or "WITH clause" is more understandable than CTE, which to me is a term that has no relationship with anything else. </pre></blockquote><font size="-1"><font face="Helvetica"><br /> Peter's comment certainly resonates with me. When I firstheard about this "CTE" business I had to go to the web to discover that they were components of the WITH clause - whichI was familiar with from my DB2 days... <br /></font></font> For me it was the converse.. I first heard of Common TableExpressions from SQLserver users, at roughly the same time that CTE's were introduced in 8.4. When I decided to usethem, it took me a while to figure out the docs refered to it as "WITH queries".<br /><br /> ISTM we're already past thechoice to have a single name. IMHO it would be best if the documentation has a reference / index part in which both WITHqueries and Common Table Expressions (CTE) are listed.<br /><br /> Also, the terms CTE and CTEScan appear in EXPLAINoutput, it would be nice to have a meaningful hit when looking for the term in the documentation page, instead of'Your search for <b>cte</b> returned no hits.'<br /><br /> regards,<br /> Yeb Havinga<br /><br />
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, the terms CTE and CTEScan appear in EXPLAIN output, it would be nice > to have a meaningful hit when looking for the term in the documentation > page, instead of 'Your search for cte returned no hits.' This is an excellent point. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:07:59PM +0000, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On 28 December 2010 20:07, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > > The phrase "common table expression" does not appear anywhere in the SQL > > standard. The standard uses the grammar symbol <with clause>. > > I think we're losing sight of the issue a bit here. > > No one is proposing that we call WITH queries common table > expressions. As I think we all agree, the term "WITH query" and > "common table expression" are not synonymous. A WITH query is > comprised of one or more common table expressions, plus a conventional > SELECT query. As of 9.1, the thing appended to the CTE(s) can be a conventional DML query (SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE). I'm hoping to expand this in future versions. :) > All that I'm asking is that we /specify/ that the "subqueries" > already mentioned in the docs are common table expressions. +1 Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 07:09:14AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:45 AM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > > I don't see how people can be relying on links to 9.1-to-be's > > documentation. > > Well, it's always handy when the filenames are the same across > versions. Ever looked at the 9.0 documentation for something and then > modified the URL to see what it looked like in 8.1 or something? I have occasionally wondered if it would be possible to include in the SGML references to the same (or equivalent) page in previous versions, so that each page in the docs could reference the equivalent page in other versions. That would be extremely useful when trying to work out what works in your particular version. I've never done anything serious with SGML, but it'd be cool if it was possible. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, > when hate for people other than your own comes first. > - Charles de Gaulle
Hello, I have added my common table expressions docpatch to the 2011-01 commitfest: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=476 I think that we need to get this resolved. -- Regards, Peter Geoghegan
Greetings,
* Peter Geoghegan (peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com) wrote:
> I do this all the time. Anyway, I intend for this doc patch to be
> backported to 8.4 as a bugfix, which is part of the reason why it
> isn't invasive - it's just a clarification. Clearly if it makes sense
> for 9.1, it makes just as much sense for 9.0 and 8.4.
I agree with the patch, in general, as well as the recommendation to
back-port it. I reviewed it and didn't find any issues (though I
couldn't figure out the right magic things to install to actually build
the docs.. :( ). The only minor change I made was to capitalize Common
Table Expressions (having it as an acronym w/o capitalizing the full
name seemed odd to me..).
Updated patch attached. Marking as ready for committer.
commit 91e9e9285752c9fbe0c222708a10a301731594c8
Author: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Date: Wed Jan 19 20:56:44 2011 -0500
Update WITH documentation to capitalize acronym
Common Table Expressions, being a 'proper' name and having an
acronym associated with them, really should be capitalized. This
patch makes that change in the WITH documentation.
commit 9e4565cc97b81fd6b3f96d8e346bcb7ee6e8878e
Author: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Date: Wed Jan 19 20:54:47 2011 -0500
Add CTE as an acryonym and clarify WITH docs
This patch adds CTE to the list of acronyms and then updates the
WITH documentation to note that WITH queries are also known as
CTEs.
Patch by Peter Geoghegan
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachment
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > Greetings, > > * Peter Geoghegan (peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com) wrote: >> I do this all the time. Anyway, I intend for this doc patch to be >> backported to 8.4 as a bugfix, which is part of the reason why it >> isn't invasive - it's just a clarification. Clearly if it makes sense >> for 9.1, it makes just as much sense for 9.0 and 8.4. > > I agree with the patch, in general, as well as the recommendation to > back-port it. I reviewed it and didn't find any issues (though I > couldn't figure out the right magic things to install to actually build > the docs.. :( ). The only minor change I made was to capitalize Common > Table Expressions (having it as an acronym w/o capitalizing the full > name seemed odd to me..). > > Updated patch attached. Marking as ready for committer. Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
I think that a major goal of the DocBook format is that it separates content from presentation, so whatever tool is used to render that content as HTML for .org isn't necessarily publicly available. -- Regards, Peter Geoghegan
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 03:48, Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that a major goal of the DocBook format is that it separates > content from presentation, so whatever tool is used to render that > content as HTML for .org isn't necessarily publicly available. Sure it is. And FWIW, it just uses the HTML generated by the docbook tools, we don't actually work off the SGML. The current version can be found at https://pgweb.postgresql.org/browser/trunk/portal/tools/docs. The new, upcoming, version that does things like attempt-to-make-xhtml is at http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=pgweb.git;a=blob;f=tools/docs/docload.py;h=5abc2f734003d28836a85fbc0ec6c01804937af8;hb=a3523e2ba8a250950a928879ae7fa5c0a8a46d94 You will quickly notice they do basically nothing other than read in the HTML, and then "copy/paste" it into the current framework. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/