> I think there are probably other ways of fixing this query that won't have > such dramatic effects; it doesn't really seem to need to use WITH, and I bet > you could also tweak the WITH query to prevent inlining.
Yes I know I can change THIS QUERY. I've changed other ones to work around this. Normally I just use a LATERAL for this. My point is lots of people use CTEs intentionally for this kind of thing because they know they are materialized. It's going to make a lot of people hesitant to upgrade if they think they need to revisit every CTE (that they intentionally wrote cause they thought it would be materialized) to throw in a MATERIALIZED keyword. > I also think > Andres's question about why this gets inlined in the first place is a good > one; > the (m).* seems like it ought to be counted as a multiple reference. > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL > Company Well if we can at least prevent the multiple reference thing from inlining that might be good enough to solve most performance regression issues that arise. Thanks, Regina
