Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>

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

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: 2019-02-27T01:11:35Z

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 →

Prevent inlining of multiply-referenced CTEs with outer recursive refs.
- 9476131278c7 12.0 landed
Allow user control of CTE materialization, and change the default behavior.
- 608b167f9f9c 12.0 landed
Split QTW_EXAMINE_RTES flag into QTW_EXAMINE_RTES_BEFORE/_AFTER.
- 18c0da88a5d9 12.0 landed
document when PREPARE uses generic plans
- fab9d1da4a21 9.6.0 cited

>>>>> "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.

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)