On 2012-11-21 10:21:16 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 11/21/2012 09:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > >>If we're going to do it can we please come up with something more > >>intuitive and much, much more documented than "OFFSET 0"? And if/when we > >>do this we'll need to have big red warnings all over then release notes, > >>since a lot of people I know will need to do some extensive remediation > >>before moving to such a release. > >The probability that we would actually *remove* that behavior of OFFSET > >0 is not distinguishable from zero. I'm not terribly excited about > >having an alternate syntax to specify an optimization fence, but even > >if we do create such a thing, there's no need to break the historical > >usage. > > > > I wasn't talking about removing it. My point was that if the optimization > fence around CTEs is removed a lot of people will need to rework apps where > they have used them for that purpose. And I continue to think that spelling > it "OFFSET 0" is horribly obscure.
+1 WITH foo AS (SELECT ...) (barrier=on|off)? 9.3 introduces the syntax, defaulting to on 9.4 switches the default to off. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
