On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: > On 2010-09-14 10:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Hitoshi Harada<umi.tan...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>> 2010/9/15 Marko Tiikkaja<marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi>: >>>> >>>> In the email you referred to, Tom was concerned about the case where >>>> these >>>> WITH lists have different RECURSIVE declarations. This patch makes both >>>> RECURSIVE if either of them is. I can think of cases where that might >>>> lead >>>> to surprising behaviour, but the chances of any of those happening in >>>> real >>>> life seem pretty slim. >> >>> Does that cause surprising behavior? >> >> My recollection is that whether a CTE is marked RECURSIVE or not affects >> its scope of visibility, so that confusing the two cases can result in >> flat-out incorrect parser behavior. > > The worst I can think of is: > > CREATE TABLE foo(a int); > > WITH t AS (SELECT * FROM foo) > INSERT INTO bar > WITH RECURSIVE foo (SELECT 1 AS a) > SELECT * FROM t; > > t will actually be populated with the results of the CTE, not the table foo.
Unless I'm confused, that seems pretty clearly wrong. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
