Hello
On 27/01/2008, Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 09:17 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
> > Tom's feeling at the time was that even though it was providing something from
> > the standard, it wasn't actually allowing the user to do anything he couldn't
> > before.
>
> I think this feature has value:
>
+1
I thing so is better commit smaller pieces more often than one time
one big patch. Nine months long feature freeze time is enough.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
> (1) This is SQL-standard syntax (and not even wacko syntax, at that!),
> and there is merit in implementing it on those grounds alone.
>
> (2) It is supported by DB2, MS SQL and Oracle, so there is a further
> compatibility argument to be made.
>
> (3) It avoids the need to repeat subqueries multiple times in the main
> query, which can make queries more concise. Defining subqueries outside
> the main SELECT body can also have readability advantages.
>
> > If it doesn't provide any additional expressive capabilities then I
> > think he didn't like taking "with" as a reserved word.
>
> Note that we can make WITH a type_func_name_keyword, rather than a
> full-on reserved_keyword, which reduces the force of this argument
> slightly.
>
> If we're going to implement recursive queries eventually (which we
> almost surely will, whether in 8.4 or a future release), we'll need to
> make WITH more reserved at some point anyway, so I don't see much to be
> gained in the long run by delaying it.
>
> -Neil
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>