Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining
От | Serge Rielau |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining |
Дата | |
Msg-id | be1f7b5f-0099-4874-8237-df672046f23e@rielau.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:22 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/17 08:43, David Rowley wrote:
> How about we get the ball rolling on this in v10 and pull that part
> out of the docs. If anything that'll buy us a bit more wiggle room to
> change this in v11.
>
> I've attached a proposed patch.
If we just tell them that the thing they might have relied on might go
away, without a replacement to suggest, then we're just confusing and
scaring them, no?We'd end up suggesting our OFFSET 0 hack as true protection. If they know for a fact that their use of CTE for its barrier properties is not supported they are also more likely to document intentional usage with something like: "-- CHANGE THIS ONCE VERSION 11 IS RELEASED!!! --" which would make finding the call sites that need to add the new "MATERIALIZED" keyword much easier.
How about adding MATERIALIZED now (in 10) as a noise word.
Give people a release to switch over before pulling the rug..
Cheers
Serge
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: