On 2017-04-30 00:28:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> There's already a pretty large hill to climb here in the way of
> breaking peoples' expectations about CTEs being optimization
> fences.  Breaking the documented semantics about CTEs being
> single-evaluation seems to me to be an absolute non-starter.

If all referenced functions are non-volatile, I don't quite see the
problem?  Personally I believe we'll have to offer a proper
anti-inlining workaround anyway, and in that case there's really nothing
that should stop us from inlining CTE without volatile functions twice?

- Andres

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to