Hello,
I have added my common table expressions docpatch to the 2011-01 commitfest:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=476
I think that we need to get this resolved.
--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 07:09:14AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:45 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> > I don't see how people can be relying on links to 9.1-to-be's
> > documentation.
>
> Well, it's always handy when the filenames are the same across
> versions. Ever looked at
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:07:59PM +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 28 December 2010 20:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > The phrase "common table expression" does not appear anywhere in the SQL
> > standard. The standard uses the grammar symbol .
>
> I think we're losing sight of the issue a bi
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> Also, the terms CTE and CTEScan appear in EXPLAIN output, it would be nice
> to have a meaningful hit when looking for the term in the documentation
> page, instead of 'Your search for cte returned no hits.'
This is an excellent point.
--
Ro
On 2010-12-29 09:16, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
On 29/12/10 03:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2010-12-28 at 00:19 +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even
call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that
that's a mistak
On 29/12/10 03:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2010-12-28 at 00:19 +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even
call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that
that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else
On 28 December 2010 20:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The phrase "common table expression" does not appear anywhere in the SQL
> standard. The standard uses the grammar symbol .
I think we're losing sight of the issue a bit here.
No one is proposing that we call WITH queries common table
express
On tis, 2010-12-28 at 09:31 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> Common Table Expression, or CTE for short, is the standard
> terminology, and I don't just mean SQL:2008. It's standard in DB2,
> Drizzle, Firebird, HSQLDB, Informix, Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, and
> Sybase SQL Anywhere, at a minimum.
>
On tis, 2010-12-28 at 16:04 +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> If I search for "common table expressions" on Wikipedia, I am sent to
> the common table expressions article, without any re-direction. The
> article doesn't mention "with query" as a synonym of CTE at any point.
> If I search for "With qu
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 04:35:26PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2010-12-28 at 00:19 +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even
> > call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that
> > that's a mistake because
On 28 December 2010 14:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm with Peter on that. CTE is a completely meaningless term to most
> users.
I don't believe that that's the case. If CTE is a completely
meaningless term to most users, WITH query is even more meaningless. I
never refer to WITH queries in conversati
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On tis, 2010-12-28 at 00:19 +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even
>> call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that
>> that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else.
> I th
On tis, 2010-12-28 at 00:19 +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even
> call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that
> that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else.
I think "WITH query" or "WITH clause"
On 28 December 2010 12:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:45 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>> I don't see how people can be relying on links to 9.1-to-be's
>> documentation.
>
> Well, it's always handy when the filenames are the same across
> versions. Ever looked at the 9.0 documenta
Excerpts from David Fetter's message of mar dic 28 02:45:11 -0300 2010:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 03:49:16AM +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > Attached documentation patch should make things clearer. I haven't
> > changed the "queries-with" section to
> > "queries-common-table-expression" per Davi
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:45 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> I don't see how people can be relying on links to 9.1-to-be's
> documentation.
Well, it's always handy when the filenames are the same across
versions. Ever looked at the 9.0 documentation for something and then
modified the URL to see what
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 03:49:16AM +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 28 December 2010 01:09, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Personally, I think it's worth fixing. This sort of disjunction
> > between code and documentation can cause confusing for someone
> > trying to get started on hacking. It is a
On 28 December 2010 01:09, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Personally, I think it's worth fixing. This sort of disjunction
> between code and documentation can cause confusing for someone
> trying to get started on hacking. It is an exception to the
> otherwise excellent documentation of both the produc
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 09:51:01PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 9:28 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:19:47AM +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >> It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even
> >> call CTEs CTEs at any point. We cal
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 9:28 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:19:47AM +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even
>> call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that
>> that's a mistake because we call
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:19:47AM +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even
> call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that
> that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else.
Agreed.
> Is there interest i
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even
> call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think
> that that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else.
>
> Is there interest in correcting this, by putting "CTEs" or "Commo
It's worth noting that officially (i.e. in the docs), we don't even
call CTEs CTEs at any point. We call them WITH queries. I think that
that's a mistake because we call them CTEs everywhere else.
Is there interest in correcting this, by putting "CTEs" or "Common
table expressions" in parenthesis
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:47:14PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2010-12-22 at 20:44 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> > On 2010-12-22 8:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > As a side note, I think the term "writable CTE" is a misnomer. The CTE
> > > is not writable. The CTE is the result
On ons, 2010-12-22 at 20:44 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 2010-12-22 8:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > As a side note, I think the term "writable CTE" is a misnomer. The CTE
> > is not writable. The CTE is the result of a write operation.
> >
> > A writable CTE would look like this:
> >
>
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:54:39PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>
> > I think I've used "DML WITH" in the patch, but I don't like that
> > either. Naming this feature seems to be quite a challenge.
> >
> > I'd prefer something short but easily understandable, but those
Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> I think I've used "DML WITH" in the patch, but I don't like that
> either. Naming this feature seems to be quite a challenge.
>
> I'd prefer something short but easily understandable, but those
> two might be mutually exclusive.
How about?:
DML CTEs
DML-based CTEs
R
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Marko Tiikkaja
wrote:
> I'd prefer something short but easily understandable, but those two might be
> mutually exclusive.
Volatile CTE's doesn't add any more clarity either. Maybe "Round Trip
Reduction" CTE's. :)
--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
--
Sent via
On 2010-12-22 8:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
As a side note, I think the term "writable CTE" is a misnomer. The CTE
is not writable. The CTE is the result of a write operation.
A writable CTE would look like this:
WITH foo AS (SELECT ...) UPDATE foo SET ...
a bit like an updatable view.
A
As a side note, I think the term "writable CTE" is a misnomer. The CTE
is not writable. The CTE is the result of a write operation.
A writable CTE would look like this:
WITH foo AS (SELECT ...) UPDATE foo SET ...
a bit like an updatable view.
AFAICT, the current patch doesn't use the term, so
30 matches
Mail list logo
