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
>
>
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,
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
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