On 10/19/19 6:48 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 11:56:56AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On October 19, 2019 6:01:04 AM GMT+02:00, Andrew Gierth >> <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes: >>> >>> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 02:21:30PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: >>> >> However, an alternative would be to backport the new syntax to some >>> >> earlier versions. "WITH ... AS MATERIALIZED" can easily just be >>> >> synonymous with "WITH ... AS" in versions prior to 12; there's no >>> >> need to support "NOT MATERIALIZED" since that's explicitly >>> >> requesting the new query-folding feature that only exists in 12. >>> >> Would something like the attached patch against REL_11_STABLE be >>> >> acceptable? I'd like to backpatch it at least as far as PostgreSQL >>> >> 10. >>> >>> Michael> I am afraid that new features don't gain a backpatch. This is >>> Michael> a project policy. Back-branches should just include bug fixes. >>> >>> I do think an argument can be made for making an exception in this >>> particular case. This wouldn't be backpatching a feature, just >>> accepting >>> and ignoring some of the new syntax to make upgrading easier. >> >> +1 >> > > +0.5 > > In general, I'm not opposed to accepting and ignoring the MATERIALIZED > syntax (assuming we'd only accept AS MATERIALIZED, but not the negative > variant). > > FWIW I'm not sure the "we don't want to upgrade application code at the > same time as the database" is really tenable.
I'm -1 for exactly this reason. In any case, if you insist on using the same code with pre-12 and post-12 releases, this should be achievable (at least in most cases) by using the "offset 0" trick, shouldn't it? cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
