Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-02-14T19:22:04Z
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

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:02 AM Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 2019-Feb-14, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > On 14/02/2019 16:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > ... so, have we beaten this topic to death yet?  Can we make a decision?
> > >
> > > Personally, I'd be happy with either of the last two patch versions
> > > I posted (that is, either AS [[NOT] MATERIALIZED] or
> > > AS [MATERIALIZE [ON|OFF]] syntax).  But we gotta pick something.
> >
> > If we're not really planning to add any more options, I'd register a
> > light vote for MATERIALIZED.  It reads easier, seems more grammatically
> > correct, and uses an existing word.
>
> +1 for MATERIALIZED, as I proposed in
> https://postgr.es/m/20170503173305.fetj4tz7kd56tjlr@alvherre.pgsql

Seconded!

merlin