Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
От | David Fetter |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20190130023512.GX12076@fetter.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 02:52:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > 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 ) I think this would be better with parentheses like this: WITH ctename [ ( MATERIALIZE { ON | OFF } ) ] AS ( query ) [, ... ] and it's a lot easier to add more query hints later. Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: