On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 07:58:04PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 18.08.22 20:10, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Thus:
> > > Strictly speaking, this process is iteration, but
> > > <literal>RECURSIVE</literal>
> > > is the terminology chosen by the SQL standards committee."
> > >
> > > Because the above sounds just fine, I'd argue that if one does leave "not
> > > recursion" it should be set off by a comma.
> > I went with new wording, which should make this even clearer; patch
> > attached.
>
> I think this whole note is a bit misleading, like the SQL people don't know
> what recursion is. The point is that the query is defined recursively. The
> evaluation process is iterative. Those two are not contradictions.
Okay, makes sense. Here is an updated patch.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml
index 1428d99d0f..4c5a83c9cb 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml
@@ -2172,9 +2172,8 @@ SELECT sum(n) FROM t;
<note>
<para>
- Strictly speaking, this process is iteration not recursion, but
- <literal>RECURSIVE</literal> is the terminology chosen by the SQL standards
- committee.
+ While <literal>RECURSIVE</literal> allows queries to be specified
+ recursively, internally all queries are evaluated iteratively.
</para>
</note>
