Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1220973693.6328.69.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch ("Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 09:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > 3. "I think this is a "must fix" because of the point about volatile > > functions --- changing it later will result in user-visible semantics > > changes, so we have to get it right the first time." > > > > I don't entirely agree with #3. It is user-visible, but only in the > > sense that someone is depending on undocumented multiple-evaluation > > behavior. > > What makes you think it's going to be undocumented? Single versus > multiple evaluation is a keep aspect of this feature and certainly > needs to be documented one way or the other. I can't understand why > we would introduce a standard syntax with non-standard behavior, but > if we do, it certainly had better be mentioned in the documentation. > I meant that -- hypothetically if we did accept the feature as-is -- the number of evaluations would be documented to be undefined, not N. That would avoid the backwards-compatibility problem. This one point is probably not worth discussing now, because argument #1 and #2 stand on their own. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: