Horton

Re: wCTE behaviour

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-11-11T19:03:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:36:38PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> then the conclusion is foregone. To my mind, they should be thought of
> as running in parallel, or at least in an indeterminate order, just
> exactly the same way that different data modifications made in a single
> INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE command are considered to be made simultaneously.
>> 
>> +1

> -1.

> When people want to see what has gone before, they can use RETURNING
> clauses.  With the "indeterminate order" proposal, they cannot.

Say what?  The RETURNING data is well defined in any case.

			regards, tom lane