On 05/02/2017 10:13 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> On 2017-04-30 07:19:21 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: >>> why we cannot to introduce GUC option - enable_cteoptfence ? >> Doesn't really solve the issue, and we've generally shied away from GUCs >> that influence behaviour after a few bad experiences. What if you want >> one CTE inlined, but another one not? > Yeah. Are we absolutely opposed to SQL syntax against WITH that > allows or disallows fencing? for example, > > WITH [MATERIALIZED] > > Pushing people to OFFSET 0 is a giant step backwards IMO, and as in > implementation detail is also subject to change. > >
Agreed, it's an ugly as sin and completely non-obvious hack. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
