2010/9/15 Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi>: > On 2010-09-13 4:15 PM +0300, Hitoshi Harada wrote: >> >> 1. WITH clause atop INSERT >> Although the previous discussion got the consensus that we forbid WITH >> atop INSERT, it seems to me that it can be allowed. I managed to do it >> by treating the top WITH clause (of INSERT) as if the one of SELECT >> (or VALUES). > > In the email you referred to, Tom was concerned about the case where these > WITH lists have different RECURSIVE declarations. This patch makes both > RECURSIVE if either of them is. I can think of cases where that might lead > to surprising behaviour, but the chances of any of those happening in real > life seem pretty slim.
I might not understand the RECURSIVE issue correctly. I put my effort to make such query WITH RECURSIVE r AS (SELECT 1 i UNION ALL SELECT i + 1 FROM r WHERE i < 10) INSERT INTO WITH t AS (SELECT 0) VALUES((SELECT * FROM r LIMIT 1)),((SELECT * FROM t)); look like INSERT INTO WITH RECURSIVE r AS (SELECT 1 i UNION ALL SELECT i + 1 FROM r WHERE i < 10), t AS (SELECT 0) VALUES((SELECT * FROM r LIMIT 1)),((SELECT * FROM t)); Does that cause surprising behavior? > but the chances of any of those happening in real > life seem pretty slim. The OLD/NEW issue is also near impossible to be problem in the real life, except for the misleading error message. But once users see the non-understandable behavior, they make lines to claim as it's a "bug". So we need to put effort to avoid it as possible, I believe. Regards, -- Hitoshi Harada -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
