Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-04-30 07:19:21 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> why we cannot to introduce GUC option - enable_cteoptfence ?
>
> Doesn't really solve the issue, and we've generally shied away from GUCs
> that influence behaviour after a few bad experiences.  What if you want
> one CTE inlined, but another one not?

Yeah.  Are we absolutely opposed to SQL syntax against WITH that
allows or disallows fencing?   for example,

WITH [MATERIALIZED]

Pushing people to OFFSET 0 is a giant step backwards IMO, and as in
implementation detail is also subject to change.

merlin