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.​

Reply via email to