Andreas Kretschmer writes:
> it would be good if we can also add this to chapter 7.8, wouldn't it?
I don't feel a need to. 7.8 isn't attempting to define the syntax
precisely. Moreover, we've had this feature since 8.4, and this
is the first I've heard of somebody misinterpreting the syntax;
so
Am 18.11.19 um 20:12 schrieb Andreas Kretschmer:
Am 18.11.19 um 18:32 schrieb Tom Lane:
Andreas Kretschmer writes:
One of our customers had problems with the syntax of WITH RECURSIVE. He
suggested that the documentation should be improved, maybe with this
sentence:
"If any of the CTEs is
Am 18.11.19 um 18:32 schrieb Tom Lane:
Andreas Kretschmer writes:
One of our customers had problems with the syntax of WITH RECURSIVE. He
suggested that the documentation should be improved, maybe with this
sentence:
"If any of the CTEs is recursive, the recursive keywork must be present
aft
Andreas Kretschmer writes:
> One of our customers had problems with the syntax of WITH RECURSIVE. He
> suggested that the documentation should be improved, maybe with this
> sentence:
> "If any of the CTEs is recursive, the recursive keywork must be present
> after with", so to make sure that i
Hi,
One of our customers had problems with the syntax of WITH RECURSIVE. He
suggested that the documentation should be improved, maybe with this
sentence:
"If any of the CTEs is recursive, the recursive keywork must be present
after with", so to make sure that it does not refer to just one o
