On 2017-04-30 00:28:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > There's already a pretty large hill to climb here in the way of > breaking peoples' expectations about CTEs being optimization > fences. Breaking the documented semantics about CTEs being > single-evaluation seems to me to be an absolute non-starter.
If all referenced functions are non-volatile, I don't quite see the problem? Personally I believe we'll have to offer a proper anti-inlining workaround anyway, and in that case there's really nothing that should stop us from inlining CTE without volatile functions twice? - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
