Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
| От | Andrew Gierth |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 87va39rzvv.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs (Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> writes: Andreas> I believe I have fixed these except for the comment on the Andreas> conditions for when we inline. Andreas> Andrew Gierth: Why did you chose to not inline on FOR UPDATE Andreas> but inline volatile functions? I feel that this might be Andreas> inconsistent since in both cases the query in the CTE can Andreas> change behavior if the planner pushes a WHERE clause into the Andreas> subquery, but maybe I am missing something. I chose not to inline FOR UPDATE because it was an obvious compatibility break, potentially changing the set of locked rows, and it was an easy condition to test. I did not test for volatile functions simply because this was a very early stage of the project (which wasn't my project, I was just assisting someone else). I left the comment "this likely needs some additional checks" there for a reason. -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: