On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-04-30 07:19:21 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> why we cannot to introduce GUC option - enable_cteoptfence ? > > Doesn't really solve the issue, and we've generally shied away from GUCs > that influence behaviour after a few bad experiences. What if you want > one CTE inlined, but another one not?
Yeah. Are we absolutely opposed to SQL syntax against WITH that allows or disallows fencing? for example, WITH [MATERIALIZED] Pushing people to OFFSET 0 is a giant step backwards IMO, and as in implementation detail is also subject to change. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
