On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 01:57:04PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > > No idea. What do you think if we allow only one query name at the > > > moment. > > > > I'm not sure I understand what that has to do with sorting. > > > > Please find attached a place where I've found some problems sorting by > > tree by array as Asaba-san suggested. > > Humm. your problem seems to do nothing with the problem I refer to.
Sorry about that. Is my problem reproducible? Is there maybe some way to include regression tests around it? > What I have in my mind is something like: > > WITH RECURSIVE foo(a, b) AS > (SELECT ... UNION SELECT...), > > bar(c, d) AS > (SELECT ... FROM foo WHERE ...UNION...) > ) > SELECT * FROM foo; > > In this there are two query names (foo, bar) and we need to detect the > dependency that bar relies on foo before processing the query. I think mutually recursive queries may have been dropped from SQL:2008. > However, as I said earlier, this kind of use case would be rare in > the real world, and I'd like to limit ourselves to having only one > query name at the moment. > > Also I suggest to concentrate on reviewing the WITH RECURSIVE > implementation itself now, rather than discussing how to use git > repository or how to write an interesting WITH RECURSIVE > applications. > > Don't get me wrong. I believe git is a great tool. But we have > limited time and need to think about the priority. Fair enough :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
