Horton

Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

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

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>
Cc: Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-02-27T04:45:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Prevent inlining of multiply-referenced CTEs with outer recursive refs.

  2. Allow user control of CTE materialization, and change the default behavior.

  3. Split QTW_EXAMINE_RTES flag into QTW_EXAMINE_RTES_BEFORE/_AFTER.

  4. document when PREPARE uses generic plans

Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>  Tom> Also, I thought of a somewhat-related scenario that the code isn't
>  Tom> accounting for: you can break the restrictions about single
>  Tom> evaluation with nested WITHs, like

> I also thought about that. But what I thought about it on reflection
> was: if the user explicitly wrote NOT MATERIALIZED, then we should
> assume they mean it.

Ah, but the example I gave also had MATERIALIZED on the inner WITH.
Why should the user not also mean that?

			regards, tom lane