Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
Дата
Msg-id 12408.1548707732@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> However, generally we have not had great luck with just sticking
> keywords in there (cf. VACUUM, ANALYZE, EXPLAIN, COPY) which is why I
> suggested using a flexible syntax with parenthesized options.

Fair, except that as you then proceed to point out, that does not work
either before or after the AS.

Conceivably we could make it work without the parens:

    WITH ctename AS [ option = value [ , .... ] ] ( query .... )

which for the immediate feature I'd be tempted to spell as

    WITH ctename AS [ materialize = on/off ] ( query ... )

I think the only reason the syntax is MATERIALIZED with a D is that
that's already a keyword; it reads a bit awkwardly IMO.  But if we
were accepting a ColId there, there'd be room to adjust the spelling.

That said, this is still clunkier than the existing proposal, and
I'm not really convinced that we need to leave room for more options.

            regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Proposed refactoring of planner header files
Следующее
От: "Nishant, Fnu"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: possible deadlock: different lock ordering for heap pages