Adam Mackler writes:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Right offhand I'm inclined to think that the reference to "iter"
>> inside the first sub-WITH ought to be disallowed. I don't recall
>> the exact rules about where a recursive reference can appear, but
>> it sure doesn't
Are you asking me or the other experts? I had not even heard of a
common table expression a few weeks ago, so I doubt I'm qualified to
opine what ought to be possible; I just know what I'm trying to do.
Basically I've got a recursive CTE with rows, some of which have
information that I want to be
Adam Mackler writes:
> WITH RECURSIVE
> tab(id_key,link) AS ( VALUES (1,17), (2,17), (3,17), (4,17), (6,17), (5,17) ),
> iter (id_key, row_type, link) AS (
> SELECT 0, 'base', 17
> UNION(
> WITH remaining(id_key, row_type, link, min) AS (
> SELECT tab.id_key, 'true'::text, iter.lin
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Adam Mackler wrote:
>
> Next, uncomment the final UNION four lines from the end. When I do
> that I then get a two row result. I'm not an expert on recursive
> CTEs, but I don't believe a UNION should decrease the number of rows
> returned.
I haven't dug through
Hi:
I think I might have found a bug in the 9.2beta3 version. I'm kind of
new to SQL, so forgive me if I'm just misinterpreting correct
behavior. Given the query below, execute it. You should get a
seven-row result.
Next, uncomment the final UNION four lines from the end. When I do
that I the
