Re: wCTE behaviour
Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>
From: Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>, Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>
Date: 2011-02-25T16:24:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2011-02-25 6:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Marko Tiikkaja<marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi> writes: >> Without hacking it broke when PQdescribePrepared was called on a >> prepared query like: > >> WITH t AS (DELETE FROM foo) >> SELECT 1; > >> Not sure if that's an actual problem, but it seemed like something worht >> fixing. > > I can't replicate such a problem here --- do you have a concrete test > case? ISTM the issue would only have been a problem back when you > were trying to generate multiple PlannedStmts from a query like the > above. I don't have one right now (I lost the one I had because of a hardware failure in a virtual machine), but I can write you one if you want to. But see below. > The current implementation with everything in one plantree > really ought to look just like a SELECT so far as the portal code > is concerned. The problem was that the old code was using PORTAL_MULTI_QUERY whenever a wCTE was present. Are you saying that you are using PORTAL_ONE_SELECT? Doesn't that have problems with triggers, for example? >>> Also, why are we forbidding wCTEs in cursors? Given the current >>> definitions, that case seems to work fine too: the wCTEs will be >>> executed as soon as you fetch something from the cursor. Are you >>> just worried about not allowing a case that might be hard to support >>> later? > >> Honestly, I have no idea. It might be a leftover from the previous >> design. If it looks like it's easy to support, then go for it. > > Right now I'm thinking that it is best to continue to forbid it. > If we go over to the less-sequential implementation that I'm advocating > in another thread, the timing of the updates would become a lot less > predictable than I say above. If we refuse it for now, we can always > remove the restriction later, but the other way is more painful. Fair enough. Regards, Marko Tiikkaja