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: 2011-02-25T00:06:57Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2011-02-25 1:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Marko Tiikkaja<marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi> writes: >> I fixed an issue with the portal logic, and now we use >> PORTAL_ONE_RETURNING for wCTE queries, even if the main query is not a >> DML or does not have RETURNING. This also means that we materialize the >> results of the main query sometimes unnecessarily, but that doesn't look >> like an easy thing to fix. PORTAL_ONE_RETURNING as a name is also a bit >> misleading now, so maybe that needs changing.. > > Why is it necessary to hack the portal logic at all? The patch seems to > work for me without that. (I've fixed quite a few bugs though, so maybe > what this is really doing is masking a problem elsewhere.) 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. > 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. Regards, Marko Tiikkaja