On 09/01/2016 09:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-09-01 15:46:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Tomas Vondra writes:
>>> While investigating a CTE-related query, I've noticed that we don't
>>> really remove all unreachable CTEs.
>>
>> We expend a grand total of three lines of code on making that
On 2016-09-01 15:46:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra writes:
> > While investigating a CTE-related query, I've noticed that we don't
> > really remove all unreachable CTEs.
>
> We expend a grand total of three lines of code on making that happen.
> I'm pretty much -1 on adding a great dea
Tomas Vondra writes:
> While investigating a CTE-related query, I've noticed that we don't
> really remove all unreachable CTEs.
We expend a grand total of three lines of code on making that happen.
I'm pretty much -1 on adding a great deal more code or complexity
to make it happen recursively; t
On 2016-09-01 21:36:13 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Of course, it's harmless as none of those CTEs gets actually executed,
> but is this intentional, or do we want/need to fix it? I don't see
> anything about this in the docs, but it seems a bit awkward and
> confusing to remove only some of the CT
Hi,
While investigating a CTE-related query, I've noticed that we don't
really remove all unreachable CTEs. For example, for this query
with a as (select 1),
b as (select * from a),
c as (select * from b)
select 2;
where none of the CTEs if (directly or indirectly) refe
