> I could tolerate telling people to use OFFSET 0 (and documenting it!) > as a workaround if we can't get something more friendly in.
I agree with that. > If we go with WITH INLINE then we're likely not solving anything, because > most people will simply use WITH just like now, and will be subject to the > fencing without realizing it. I agree - the default behaviour should be change to match what everybody expects. The current behaviour should be the exception. > Yes, and we're missing the opportunity to confirm with what other > systems do, and the spirit of the SQL language's declare what I want, > not how to do it, model. Essentially *all* other systems optimize CTEs the same way they optimize derived tables. I think even MySQL does it like that in the upcoming 8.0 release. I have never heard anyone saying that the Postgres implementation is an advantage and that they would hate to see this disappear. I usually hear "Why is Postgres doing that? Can't they change that?" Maybe I have a limited view on this, but from where I stand, simply changing it would help everybody I know and would not break anything. I don't even think a replacement for the old behaviour would be necessary. -- View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/CTE-inlining-tp5958992p5959509.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
