Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 17787.1548791564@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 05:05:32PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, I thought about that too, but it doesn't seem like an improvement. >> If the query is very long (which isn't unlikely) I think people would >> prefer to see the option(s) up front. > Having these options at the front of the WITH clause looks more > natural to me. Well, we've managed to get agreement on the semantics of this thing, let's not get hung up on the syntax details. I propose that we implement and document this as WITH ctename AS [ MATERIALIZE { ON | OFF } ] ( query ) which is maybe a bit clunky but not awful, and it would leave room to generalize it to "AS [ optionname optionvalue [ , ... ] ]" if we ever need to. Looking at the precedent of e.g. EXPLAIN, we could probably allow just "MATERIALIZE" as well, with the boolean value defaulting to true. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: