On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > However, the real reason for doing it isn't any of those, but rather > to establish the principle that the executions of the modifying > sub-queries are interleaved not sequential. We're never going to be > able to do any significant optimization of such queries if we have to > preserve the behavior that the sub-queries execute sequentially. > And I think it's inevitable that users will manage to build such an > assumption into their queries if the first release with the feature > behaves that way.
Does the interleaved execution have sane semantics? With a query like: WITH a as update x set x.i=x.i+1 returning x.i, b as update x set x.i=x.i+1 returning x.i select * from a natural join b; Is there any way to tell what it will return or what state it will leave the table in? -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
