Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] WITH RECUSIVE patches 0717

2008-07-20 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 08:19:35AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > > > Thus I think we should avoid this kind of ORDER BY. Probably we should > > > > avoid LIMIT/OFFSET and FOR UPDATE as well. > > > > > > What of index-optimized SELECT max(...) ? > > > > Aggregate functions in a recursive term i

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] WITH RECUSIVE patches 0717

2008-07-20 Thread David Fetter
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 08:19:35AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > > Thus I think we should avoid this kind of ORDER BY. Probably we should > > > avoid LIMIT/OFFSET and FOR UPDATE as well. > > > > What of index-optimized SELECT max(...) ? > > Aggregate functions in a recursive term is prohibited b

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] WITH RECUSIVE patches 0717

2008-07-20 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> > Thus I think we should avoid this kind of ORDER BY. Probably we should > > avoid LIMIT/OFFSET and FOR UPDATE as well. > > What of index-optimized SELECT max(...) ? Aggregate functions in a recursive term is prohibited by the standard. For example, WITH RECURSIVE x(n) AS (SELECT 1 UNION ALL

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] WITH RECUSIVE patches 0717

2008-07-20 Thread Tom Lane
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thus I think we should avoid this kind of ORDER BY. Probably we should > avoid LIMIT/OFFSET and FOR UPDATE as well. What of index-optimized SELECT max(...) ? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hacker

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] WITH RECUSIVE patches 0717

2008-07-20 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> This crashes the backend: > > WITH RECURSIVE t(n) AS ( > VALUES (1) > UNION ALL > SELECT n+1 FROM t WHERE n < 5 ORDER BY 1 > ) > SELECT n FROM t; > > apparently because of the ORDER BY 1 Thanks for the report. I think ORDER BY in this case is useless anyway. ORDER BY affects (VALUES

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] WITH RECUSIVE patches 0717

2008-07-18 Thread Erik
On Fri, July 18, 2008 03:41, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> > Here is the lastest WITH RECURSIVE patches against CVS HEAD created by >> > Yoshiyuki Asaba and minor corrections by Tatsuo Ishii. >> >> I tried this patch vs. CVS HEAD used my usual configure option with >> only --with-prefix set, then tried to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] WITH RECUSIVE patches 0717

2008-07-18 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 07:56:09AM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:41:20AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > > > Here is the lastest WITH RECURSIVE patches against CVS HEAD created by > > > > Yoshiyuki Asaba and minor corrections by Tatsuo Ishii. > > > > > > I tried this patch

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] WITH RECUSIVE patches 0717

2008-07-18 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:41:20AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > > Here is the lastest WITH RECURSIVE patches against CVS HEAD created by > > > Yoshiyuki Asaba and minor corrections by Tatsuo Ishii. > > > > I tried this patch vs. CVS HEAD used my usual configure option with > > only --with-prefix

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] WITH RECUSIVE patches 0717

2008-07-17 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> > Here is the lastest WITH RECURSIVE patches against CVS HEAD created by > > Yoshiyuki Asaba and minor corrections by Tatsuo Ishii. > > I tried this patch vs. CVS HEAD used my usual configure option with > only --with-prefix set, then tried to make, and got: > > make[3]: *** No rule to make tar

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] WITH RECUSIVE patches 0717

2008-07-17 Thread David Fetter
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 06:40:25PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > Hi, > > Here is the lastest WITH RECURSIVE patches against CVS HEAD created by > Yoshiyuki Asaba and minor corrections by Tatsuo Ishii. I tried this patch vs. CVS HEAD used my usual configure option with only --with-prefix set, then