Hello On 27/01/2008, Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 09:17 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote: > > Tom's feeling at the time was that even though it was providing something > > from > > the standard, it wasn't actually allowing the user to do anything he > > couldn't > > before. > > I think this feature has value: >
+1 I thing so is better commit smaller pieces more often than one time one big patch. Nine months long feature freeze time is enough. Regards Pavel Stehule > (1) This is SQL-standard syntax (and not even wacko syntax, at that!), > and there is merit in implementing it on those grounds alone. > > (2) It is supported by DB2, MS SQL and Oracle, so there is a further > compatibility argument to be made. > > (3) It avoids the need to repeat subqueries multiple times in the main > query, which can make queries more concise. Defining subqueries outside > the main SELECT body can also have readability advantages. > > > If it doesn't provide any additional expressive capabilities then I > > think he didn't like taking "with" as a reserved word. > > Note that we can make WITH a type_func_name_keyword, rather than a > full-on reserved_keyword, which reduces the force of this argument > slightly. > > If we're going to implement recursive queries eventually (which we > almost surely will, whether in 8.4 or a future release), we'll need to > make WITH more reserved at some point anyway, so I don't see much to be > gained in the long run by delaying it. > > -Neil > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
