On 22/11/12 08:42, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 11/21/2012 02:30 PM, Gavin Flower wrote:
>> WITH FENCE foo AS (SELECT ...)
>> default?
>>
>>
>> WITHOUT FENCE foo AS (SELECT ...) :-)
>> Nah!
>> I prefer this, but it is too specific to 'WITH',
>> and very unSQL standardish!
>>
>> Alternatively one of the following
>>
>> 1. WITH UNFENCED foo AS (SELECT ...)
>> 2. WITH NO FENCE foo AS (SELECT ...)
>> 3. WITH NOT FENCE foo AS (SELECT ...)
>>
>> I loke the firsat variant, but the 3rd is
>> most SQL standardish!
>>
>
> As Tom (I think) pointed out, we should not have a syntax tied to CTEs.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
If other SQL constructs have a optimisation fence, then the FENCE & NOT
FENCE syntax can be used theire as well.
So what am I missing? (obviously WITHOUT FENCE would not make sense
elsewhere, but I wasn't really being serious when I suggested it!)