On 15/11/12 15:03, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 15 November 2012 01:46, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It cuts both ways. I have used CTEs a LOT precisely because this behaviour
lets me get better plans. Without that I'll be back to using the "offset 0"
hack.
Is the "OFFSET 0" hack really so bad? We've been telling people to do
that for years, so it's already something that we've effectively
committed to.
How about adding the keywords FENCED and NOT FENCED to the SQL
definition of CTE's - with FENCED being the default?
Cheers,
Gavin
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
