On 2019-Jun-03, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-06-03 11:45:51 -0400, Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
> > It is understandably late in the 12 cycle, so maybe prohibit NOT
> > MATERIALIZED with DML altogheter and revisit this in 13?
>
> I could see us adding an error, or just continuing to silently ign
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 07:33:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
> > It might be worth documenting the fact that NOT MATERIALIZED doesn't
> > affect DML CTEs, just as it doesn't affect statements with volatile
> > functions and recursive CTEs.
>
> We already do:
>
> However,
David Fetter writes:
> It might be worth documenting the fact that NOT MATERIALIZED doesn't
> affect DML CTEs, just as it doesn't affect statements with volatile
> functions and recursive CTEs.
We already do:
However, if a WITH query is non-recursive and side-effect-free (that
is, it is
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 11:45:51AM -0400, Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
> Currently, WITH a AS NOT MATERIALIZED (INSERT ...) would silently
> disregard the "NOT MATERIALIZED" instruction and execute the data-
> modifying CTE to completion (as per the long-standing DML CTE rule).
>
> This seems like
On Monday, June 3, 2019 1:03:44 P.M. EDT Tom Lane wrote:
> CASE is a scalar-expression construct. It's got little to do with
> the timing of scan/join operations such as row fetches. We offer
> users essentially no control over when those happen ... other than
> the guarantees about CTE materiali
Elvis Pranskevichus writes:
> On Monday, June 3, 2019 12:09:46 P.M. EDT Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I understand why the rule exists in the first place, but I think
>>> that an explicit opt-in signals the assumption of responsibility
>>> and opens the possibility of using this in a well-defined
>>> evalua
On Monday, June 3, 2019 12:09:46 P.M. EDT Tom Lane wrote:
> > I understand why the rule exists in the first place, but I think
> > that an explicit opt-in signals the assumption of responsibility
> > and opens the possibility of using this in a well-defined
> > evaluation context, such as CASE WHEN
Elvis Pranskevichus writes:
> On Monday, June 3, 2019 11:50:15 A.M. EDT Andres Freund wrote:
>>> This seems like an omission to me. Ideally, the presence of an
>>> explicit "NOT MATERIALIZED" clause on a data-modifying CTE should
>>> disable the "run to completion" logic.
>> I don't see us ever
On Monday, June 3, 2019 11:50:15 A.M. EDT Andres Freund wrote:
> > This seems like an omission to me. Ideally, the presence of an
> > explicit "NOT MATERIALIZED" clause on a data-modifying CTE should
> > disable the "run to completion" logic.
>
> I don't see us ever doing that. The result of mino
Hi,
On 2019-06-03 11:45:51 -0400, Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
> Currently, WITH a AS NOT MATERIALIZED (INSERT ...) would silently
> disregard the "NOT MATERIALIZED" instruction and execute the data-
> modifying CTE to completion (as per the long-standing DML CTE rule).
>
> This seems like an omis
Currently, WITH a AS NOT MATERIALIZED (INSERT ...) would silently
disregard the "NOT MATERIALIZED" instruction and execute the data-
modifying CTE to completion (as per the long-standing DML CTE rule).
This seems like an omission to me. Ideally, the presence of an explicit
"NOT MATERIALIZED" cl
11 matches
Mail list logo
