Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-10-09T09:40:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- v3-0001-SEARCH-and-CYCLE-clauses.patch (text/plain) patch v3-0001
On 2020-09-22 20:29, Pavel Stehule wrote: > The result is correct. When I tried to use UNION instead UNION ALL, the > pg crash I fixed the crash, but UNION [DISTINCT] won't actually work here because row/record types are not hashable. I'm leaving the partial support in, but I'm documenting it as currently not supported. > looks so clause USING in cycle detection is unsupported for DB2 and > Oracle - the examples from these databases doesn't work on PG without > modifications Yeah, the path clause is actually not necessary from a user's perspective, but it's required for internal bookkeeping. We could perhaps come up with a mechanism to make it invisible coming out of the CTE (maybe give the CTE a target list internally), but that seems like a separate project. The attached patch fixes the issues you have reported (also the view issue from the other email). I have also moved the whole rewrite support to a new file to not blow up rewriteHandler.c so much. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Enhanced cycle mark values
- f4adc41c4f92 14.0 landed
-
SEARCH and CYCLE clauses
- 3696a600e229 14.0 landed
-
doc: Expand recursive query documentation
- 323ae003e464 14.0 landed
-
Adjust cycle detection examples and tests
- 3fb676504da9 14.0 landed