On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: >> In ExecTopLevelStmtIsReadOnly, you might perhaps want to rephase the >> comment in a way that doesn't use the word "Ehm." Like maybe: "Even >> if this function returns true, the statement might still contain >> INSERT, >> UPDATE, or DELETE statements within a CTE; we only check the top-level >> statement." Also, there should be a newline immediately before the >> function name, per our usual style conventions. > > That comment tries to emphasize the fact that I can't think of any > reasonable name for that particular function. If the name looks OK, I > can update the comment.
Name seems fine. Just fix the comment. >> The limitations of INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE-within-WITH should be >> documented somewhere: top level CTE only, and no DO ALSO or >> conditional DO INSTEAD rules. If we don't intend to remove this >> limitation in a future release, we should probably also document that. >> I believe there are some other caveats that we've discussed before, >> too, though I'm not sure if they're still true. Stuff like: >> >> - CTEs will be executed to completion in sequential order before the >> main statement begins execution >> - each CTE will see the results of CTEs already executed, and the main >> statement will see the results of all CTEs >> - but queries within each CTE still won't see their own updates (a >> reference to whatever section of the manual we talk about this in >> would probably be good) >> - possible pitfalls of CTEs not being pipelined > > Right. The documentation in its current state is definitely lacking. > I've tried to focus all the time I have in making this patch technically > good. Well, technically good is certainly a good place to start. :-) Of course, we need the docs, too. Thanks for your work on this. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
