Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52beaf44-ccc3-0ba1-45c7-74aa251cd6ab@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-09-22 20:29, Pavel Stehule wrote: > The result is correct. When I tried to use UNION instead UNION ALL, the > pg crash I fixed the crash, but UNION [DISTINCT] won't actually work here because row/record types are not hashable. I'm leaving the partial support in, but I'm documenting it as currently not supported. > looks so clause USING in cycle detection is unsupported for DB2 and > Oracle - the examples from these databases doesn't work on PG without > modifications Yeah, the path clause is actually not necessary from a user's perspective, but it's required for internal bookkeeping. We could perhaps come up with a mechanism to make it invisible coming out of the CTE (maybe give the CTE a target list internally), but that seems like a separate project. The attached patch fixes the issues you have reported (also the view issue from the other email). I have also moved the whole rewrite support to a new file to not blow up rewriteHandler.c so much. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: