Re: "writable CTEs"
От | Mark Kirkwood |
---|---|
Тема | Re: "writable CTEs" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D1AEE5D.6070403@catalyst.net.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: "writable CTEs" (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: "writable CTEs"
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: