On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 10:50 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Renan Alves Fonseca writes:
> > The solution using GROUP BY in the recursive query is the following:
>
> > with recursive t1(node,nb_path) as
> > (select 1,1::numeric
> >union all
> >
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 7:32 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > I'll assume that the silence about allowing GROUP BY means it is not a
> > great idea...
>
> I don't think there's really anything to keep you from doing this --
> just put the grouping operation where you refer to the recursive CTE,
> inste
Hi,
I'm confused about what we should allow in a recursive query. For example,
in the following query:
WITH RECURSIVE t1 AS ( SELECT 1 UNION SELECT generate_series(2,3) FROM t1
ORDER BY 1 DESC) SELECT * FROM t1 ;
The parser attaches the "order by" clause to the "union" operator, and then
we er
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 7:10 PM David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
> There is distinct behavior between group by and order by here. You seem to
> be mixing them up.
>
> From Select:
>
> select_statement is any SELECT statement without an ORDER BY, LIMIT, FOR NO
> KEY UPDATE, FOR UPDATE, FOR SHARE, or F
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 5:38 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> It's not a problem if UNION ALL is used within the initial_query and
> it's not a problem if UNION ALL is used within the iterated_query. But
> you can't apply ORDER BY to the result of the UNION, because the UNION
> is kind of fake -- we're not
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 1:14 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Well, we extend the spec in lots of places. I'd be okay with removing
> this restriction if I were sure there were no bad consequences, but
> it seems likely that there are some. College math was way too long
> ago for me to be sure about the "
Hi,
In [1], we discussed adding some lines regarding the fact that SQL
functions always use generic plan. Here is the suggested patch. I've
tested on V17 and V12. It does not concern V18.
Regards,
Renan
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAApHDvp3EDrVhGjmb21bceJ5-Y7iXKOn2UGG3-ngp_9ob_mpL
Jacob Champion writes:
>
> This is tested against Python 3.6.15 (3.6 went EOL at the end of
> 2021). I'm working on getting Rocky 8 installed locally to test
> against. If it's decided we want to support downwards to 3.5, I will
> test there too (but I hope we don't; see parent thread).
>
I did
Tom Lane writes:
> Florents Tselai writes:
>> On 19 Apr 2025, at 7:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think we need to do some combination of moving our
>>> minimum-supported-version goalposts forward, making sure that
>>> whatever we claim is the minimum Python version is actually
>>> being tested i
Hi hackers,
in a recent hacking workshop organized by Robert Haas, we discussed
[1]. Among the autovacuum issues exposed, the useless vacuum case caught
my attention. I've started to study the respective code and I came up
with a prototype to improve the statistics system regarding dead tuples.
T
10 matches
Mail list logo
