Re: wCTE behaviour

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:36:38PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > then the conclusion is foregone.  To my mind, they should be thought of
> > as running in parallel, or at least in an indeterminate order, just
> > exactly the same way that different data modifications made in a single
> > INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE command are considered to be made simultaneously.
> 
> +1

-1.

When people want to see what has gone before, they can use RETURNING
clauses.  With the "indeterminate order" proposal, they cannot.

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