Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@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.
Ah, but the example I gave also had MATERIALIZED on the inner WITH.
Why should the user not also mean that?
regards, tom lane
