Re: [PATCHES] WIP: Hierarchical Queries - stage 1

2006-09-22 Thread Mark Cave-Ayland
Hi Tom, Thanks for your initial thoughts on this. On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 20:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: (cut) > You really can't get away with having the identical representation for > CTEs and ordinary sub-selects in the range table. For instance, it > looks like your patch will think that > >

[PATCHES] Timezone doc patch

2006-09-22 Thread Joachim Wieland
Appended is a doc patch that removes tables B-4 and B-5 from Appendix B and integrates information from there into other parts, mostly into section 8.5.3. I still havent gotten a reply to http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-09/msg01590.php so I didn't change those parts. Actually,

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: Hierarchical Queries - stage 1

2006-09-22 Thread Tom Lane
Mark Cave-Ayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The main problem I can see with keeping the CTEs outside the rangetable > is that according to the source, jointree nodes must currently have > RANGETBLREF nodes as leaf nodes; as I understand it, your suggestion of > maintaining the CTEs separately wo

Re: [PATCHES] Timezone doc patch

2006-09-22 Thread Tom Lane
Joachim Wieland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Appended is a doc patch that removes tables B-4 and B-5 from Appendix B and > integrates information from there into other parts, mostly into section > 8.5.3. Applied with a few minor editorializations. > I still havent gotten a reply to > http://arch