Re: More WITH

On 18 August 2015 at 01:18, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:

> FETCH [in WITH]

I'd be a huge fan of this one. I'd love to see FETCH in subqueries,
too. Currently doing anything like this requires an ugly PL/PgSQL
wrapper.

The cursor would have to be known at plan-time so it could be
interrogated for its types.

-- Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On 18 August 2015 at 01:18, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> In the interest of consistency, which is to say, of not hitting
> barriers that are essentially implementation details, I'd like to
> propose that we allow the rest of the row-returning commands inside
> WITH clauses.  We currently have:
>
> SELECT
> VALUES
> INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE ... RETURNING
>
> We don't yet have:
>
> EXPLAIN [ANALYZE]
> SHOW
> FETCH
>
> A little further out there, although this would be an API change, we
> might consider allowing the results of VACUUM and ANALYZE as row sets,
> which would also be good to wrap in WITH.
>
> Is there a good reason, or more than one, why we shouldn't have all
> the row-returning commands in WITH?
>
> Cheers,
> David.
> --
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
> Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
> Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
>
> Remember to vote!
> Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



-- Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services