Re: wCTE behaviour
От | David E. Wheeler |
---|---|
Тема | Re: wCTE behaviour |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 42E14D00-2530-4C6B-A3A0-113648D84D5F@kineticode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: wCTE behaviour (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: wCTE behaviour
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 11, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I can see that, but if one can't see the result of the write, or can't determine whether or not it will be visible inadvance, what's the point of writeable CTEs? > > The writeable CTE returns a RETURNING set, which you can and should use > in the outer query. The thing that is being argued about here is what > you see if you look "directly" at the target table rather than making > use of RETURNING. Essentially, I'm arguing that we shouldn't promise > any particular behavior at that level, just as we don't promise that > UPDATE updates different rows in any determinate order. Yes, if RETURNING guarantees the execution order, then great. That was the first thing I tried to do before I realized thatthe current CTE implementation doesn't support w. David
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: