Re: Backport "WITH ... AS MATERIALIZED" syntax to <12?
| От | Isaac Morland |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Backport "WITH ... AS MATERIALIZED" syntax to <12? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMsGm5fAcDLpCTJXmQG-nfT77bA66=jMK4BaHtc1ML6JZGgksQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Backport "WITH ... AS MATERIALIZED" syntax to <12? (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Backport "WITH ... AS MATERIALIZED" syntax to <12?
Re: Backport "WITH ... AS MATERIALIZED" syntax to <12? Re: Backport "WITH ... AS MATERIALIZED" syntax to <12? |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 10:53, Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> In general, I'm not opposed to accepting and ignoring the MATERIALIZED
> syntax (assuming we'd only accept AS MATERIALIZED, but not the negative
> variant).
>
> FWIW I'm not sure the "we don't want to upgrade application code at the
> same time as the database" is really tenable.
I'm -1 for exactly this reason.
In any case, if you insist on using the same code with pre-12 and
post-12 releases, this should be achievable (at least in most cases) by
using the "offset 0" trick, shouldn't it?
That embeds a temporary hack in the application code indefinitely.
If only we had Guido's (Python) time machine. We could go back and start accepting "AS MATERIALIZED" as noise words starting from version 7 or something.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: