On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se> wrote:
> On 05/01/2017 04:33 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se > > I am not sure I like decorators since this means adding an ad hoc > > query hint directly into the SQL syntax which is something which I > > requires serious consideration. > > > I would shorten that to "WITH MAT" except that I don't think that > > having two way to introduce an optimization fence is worthwhile. > > You mean OFFSET 0? I have never been a fan of using it as an optimization > fence. I do not think OFFSET 0 conveys clearly enough to the reader that is > is an optimization fence. I think I was being too literal in my thinking. Proposing that we effectively do away with OFFSET 0 and instead recommend "WITH MAT name AS ()" for subqueries requiring standalone evaluation is something I can agree with. I too have always though of OFFSET 0 as hack-ish which is why my SRF usage examples have always used CTEs. David J.