Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE ... simplified syntax?

Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Would it be a worth it for us to implement a non-standard simple syntax >>> sugar on top of WITH RECURSIVE? Or, at least, something like CONNECT_BY()? >> >> The Oracle syntax only *looks* simp

Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE ... simplified syntax?

Tom Lane wrote: Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Would it be a worth it for us to implement a non-standard simple syntax sugar on top of WITH RECURSIVE? Or, at least, something like CONNECT_BY()? The Oracle syntax only *looks* simple. When you start to study it you realize that it's

Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE ... simplified syntax?

Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would it be a worth it for us to implement a non-standard simple syntax > sugar on top of WITH RECURSIVE? Or, at least, something like > CONNECT_BY()? The Oracle syntax only *looks* simple. When you start to study it you realize that it's a horrid, mes

Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE ... simplified syntax?

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 04:11:45PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > All, > > I was discussing WITH RECURSIVE the other day, and realized that one thing > which we're not getting with this patch is a simplest-case simple syntax > which 75% of users are looking for. You know, the ones with simple > p

Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE ... simplified syntax?

Hello 2008/10/9 Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > All, > > I was discussing WITH RECURSIVE the other day, and realized that one thing > which we're not getting with this patch is a simplest-case simple syntax > which 75% of users are looking for. You know, the ones with simple > proximity trees

Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE ... simplified syntax?

Josh Berkus escreveu: All, I was discussing WITH RECURSIVE the other day, and realized that one thing which we're not getting with this patch is a simplest-case simple syntax which 75% of users are looking for. You know, the ones with simple proximity trees who just want to find all children

[HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE ... simplified syntax?

All, I was discussing WITH RECURSIVE the other day, and realized that one thing which we're not getting with this patch is a simplest-case simple syntax which 75% of users are looking for. You know, the ones with simple proximity trees who just want to find all children of one parent. Would i