On Fri, 2013-01-18 at 10:00 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I've done another review of this patch and it looks pretty good to me.
> My only complaint is that there isn't a single comment inside
> makeRecursiveViewSelect().
Added some of that and committed.
> One other thought is- I'm guessing this
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
> I noticed we don't implement the recursive view syntax, even though it's
> part of the standard SQL feature set for recursive queries. Here is a
> patch to add that. It basically converts
>
> CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW name (columns) AS SELECT ...;
>
> t
At 2012-11-13 23:32:15 -0500, pete...@gmx.net wrote:
>
> I noticed we don't implement the recursive view syntax, even though
> it's part of the standard SQL feature set for recursive queries.
> Here is a patch to add that. It basically converts
>
> CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW name (columns) AS SELECT .
On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 23:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > I noticed we don't implement the recursive view syntax, even though it's
> > part of the standard SQL feature set for recursive queries. Here is a
> > patch to add that.
>
> Can't you simplify that by using "SELECT
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I noticed we don't implement the recursive view syntax, even though it's
> part of the standard SQL feature set for recursive queries. Here is a
> patch to add that.
Can't you simplify that by using "SELECT * FROM name"?
regards, tom lane
--
I noticed we don't implement the recursive view syntax, even though it's
part of the standard SQL feature set for recursive queries. Here is a
patch to add that. It basically converts
CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW name (columns) AS SELECT ...;
to
CREATE VIEW name AS WITH RECURSIVE name (columns) AS (S
