On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:26:27AM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> Or we will choose WITH MATERIALIZE, and then the users aware of > >> the fencing (and using the CTEs for that purpose) will have to > >> modify the queries. But does adding MATERIALIZE quality as major > >> query rewrite? > > > > Hardly. > > > >> Perhaps combining this with a GUC would be a solution. I mean, a > >> GUC specifying the default behavior, and then INLINE / > >> MATERIALIZE for individual CTEs in a query? > > > > It'd be nice if we could do that for a couple of releases as an > > interim measure, but people will then get locked into relying on > > it, and we'll never be able to remove it. > > The proposed guc seems like a good idea, without which ORMs that > support CTEs would be at a loss.
Are you aware of such an ORM which both supports WITH and doesn't also closely track PostgreSQL development? I'm not. Even assuming that such a thing exists, it's not at all obvious to me that we should be stalling and/or putting in what will turn out to be misfeatures to accommodate it. Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
