2010/11/8 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>: > 2010/11/8 Hitoshi Harada <umi.tan...@gmail.com>:
>> Hmm, this looks very different from our writeable CTEs. And I can see >> many issues like syntax ambiguity and execution order if we support >> it. AFAIK the most significant reason why we are working on CTEs is >> that CTEs are regarded as something like materialized table. >> >> So I think we are going on writeable "CTEs" unless there are no >> objection rather than pursuing the standard. >> Thanks for sharing anyway. >> > > I found, so writeable CTE was implemented in Microsoft SQL server too. > Can be our implementation compatible? > I don't believe MS SQL Server doesn't implement such our writeable CTEs. If you mention about this link (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175972.aspx), it says: [ WITH <common_table_expression> [ ,...n ] ] <common_table_expression>::= expression_name [ (column_name [ ,...n ] ) ] AS (CTE_query_definition) and CTE_query_definition Specifies a SELECT statement whose result set populates the common table expression. <snip> It says about top-level DML under CTE shown below which we already have in our HEAD. WITH t AS (SELECT * FROM src) INSERT INTO dest SELECT * FROM t; as "A CTE must be followed by a single SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, MERGE, or DELETE statement that references some or all the CTE columns. A CTE can also be specified in a CREATE VIEW statement as part of the defining SELECT statement of the view." They are different. 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
