The patch attached is based on the one rejected at the last CF for 9.0
last year.

http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/16303.1266023203@sss.pgh.pa.us

This patch implements the feature that allows top-level DMLs under CTE
WITH clause. For example:

WITH t AS (SELECT * FROM x)
UPDATE y SET val = t.val FROM t
WHERE y.key = t.key;

This feature is part of writeable CTEs proposed by David Fetter originally.

There were two issues at the CF.

1. WITH clause atop INSERT
Although the previous discussion got the consensus that we forbid WITH
atop INSERT, it seems to me that it can be allowed. I managed to do it
by treating the top WITH clause (of INSERT) as if the one of SELECT
(or VALUES). It is possible to disallow the CTE over INSERT statement,
but the lack for INSERT, though there are for UPDATE and DELETE,
sounds inconsistent enough.

2. OLD/NEW in rules
Following the subsequent discussion after the post linked above, I add
code to throw an appropriate error when OLD/NEW is used in WITH
clauses. It is true that OLD/NEW references look sane to general
users, but actually (at least in our implementation) they are located
in the top-level query's Range Table List. Consequently, they are
invisible inside the WITH clause. To allow them, we should rewrite the
rule systems overall. Thus, we forbid them in WITH though we should
throw an error indicating appropriate message.

I'll add the entry to CF app later. Any feedback is welcome.

Regards,


--
Hitoshi Harada

Search Discussions

  • Robert Haas at Sep 13, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
    The patch attached is based on the one rejected at the last CF for 9.0
    last year.

    http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/16303.1266023203@sss.pgh.pa.us

    This patch implements the feature that allows top-level DMLs under CTE
    WITH clause. For example:

    WITH t AS (SELECT * FROM x)
    UPDATE y SET val = t.val FROM t
    WHERE y.key = t.key;

    This feature is part of writeable CTEs proposed by David Fetter originally.
    Thanks for pursuing this. I think this will be a useful feature if we
    can get it committed, and plus David Fetter will be very, very happy.
    :-)

    --
    Robert Haas
    EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise Postgres Company
  • Merlin Moncure at Sep 13, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
    On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
    The patch attached is based on the one rejected at the last CF for 9.0
    last year.

    http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/16303.1266023203@sss.pgh.pa.us

    This patch implements the feature that allows top-level DMLs under CTE
    WITH clause. For example:

    WITH t AS (SELECT * FROM x)
    UPDATE y SET val = t.val FROM t
    WHERE y.key = t.key;

    This feature is part of writeable CTEs proposed by David Fetter originally.
    Thanks for pursuing this.  I think this will be a useful feature if we
    can get it committed, and plus David Fetter will be very, very happy.
    :-)
    Just to be clear, the attached patch is missing the part of the wCTE
    that allows queries of the form:
    WITH foo AS (DELETE * FROM bar RETURNING *) <any query using foo>

    IOW, your CTE query has to be a select. This is still highly useful
    however. The patch itself looks very clean after a quick glance
    (which is all I can offer ATM unfortunately).

    merlin
  • Robert Haas at Sep 13, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
    Just to be clear, the attached patch is missing the part of the wCTE
    that allows queries of the form:
    WITH foo AS (DELETE * FROM bar RETURNING *) <any query using foo>
    Understood.
    IOW, your CTE query has to be a select.  This is still highly useful
    however. Agreed.
    The patch itself looks very clean after a quick glance
    (which is all I can offer ATM unfortunately).
    Yeah, I haven't had a chance to look at it either, just wanted to send props.

    --
    Robert Haas
    EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise Postgres Company
  • Hitoshi Harada at Sep 14, 2010 at 12:44 am

    2010/9/14 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>:
    On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
    On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
    The patch attached is based on the one rejected at the last CF for 9.0
    last year.

    http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/16303.1266023203@sss.pgh.pa.us

    This patch implements the feature that allows top-level DMLs under CTE
    WITH clause. For example:

    WITH t AS (SELECT * FROM x)
    UPDATE y SET val = t.val FROM t
    WHERE y.key = t.key;

    This feature is part of writeable CTEs proposed by David Fetter originally.
    Thanks for pursuing this.  I think this will be a useful feature if we
    can get it committed, and plus David Fetter will be very, very happy.
    :-)
    Just to be clear, the attached patch is missing the part of the wCTE
    Yes, the main part of wCTE that allows DMLs in WITH is still under
    Marko Tikkaja. To work parallel, we split the tasks into pieces.

    Regards,


    --
    Hitoshi Harada
  • Marko Tiikkaja at Sep 14, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    On 2010-09-13 4:15 PM +0300, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
    1. WITH clause atop INSERT
    Although the previous discussion got the consensus that we forbid WITH
    atop INSERT, it seems to me that it can be allowed. I managed to do it
    by treating the top WITH clause (of INSERT) as if the one of SELECT
    (or VALUES).
    In the email you referred to, Tom was concerned about the case where
    these WITH lists have different RECURSIVE declarations. This patch
    makes both RECURSIVE if either of them is. I can think of cases where
    that might lead to surprising behaviour, but the chances of any of those
    happening in real life seem pretty slim.
    It is possible to disallow the CTE over INSERT statement,
    but the lack for INSERT, though there are for UPDATE and DELETE,
    sounds inconsistent enough.
    Also because wCTEs are not allowed below the top level, not being able
    to use INSERT as the top level statement would force people to wrap that
    INSERT in another CTE.



    Regards,
    Marko Tiikkaja
  • Hitoshi Harada at Sep 14, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    2010/9/15 Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>:
    On 2010-09-13 4:15 PM +0300, Hitoshi Harada wrote:

    1. WITH clause atop INSERT
    Although the previous discussion got the consensus that we forbid WITH
    atop INSERT, it seems to me that it can be allowed. I managed to do it
    by treating the top WITH clause (of INSERT) as if the one of SELECT
    (or VALUES).
    In the email you referred to, Tom was concerned about the case where these
    WITH lists have different RECURSIVE declarations.  This patch makes both
    RECURSIVE if either of them is.  I can think of cases where that might lead
    to surprising behaviour, but the chances of any of those happening in real
    life seem pretty slim.
    I might not understand the RECURSIVE issue correctly. I put my effort
    to make such query

    WITH RECURSIVE r AS (SELECT 1 i UNION ALL SELECT i + 1 FROM r WHERE i
    < 10) INSERT INTO WITH t AS (SELECT 0) VALUES((SELECT * FROM r LIMIT
    1)),((SELECT * FROM t));

    look like

    INSERT INTO WITH RECURSIVE r AS (SELECT 1 i UNION ALL SELECT i + 1
    FROM r WHERE i < 10), t AS (SELECT 0) VALUES((SELECT * FROM r LIMIT
    1)),((SELECT * FROM t));

    Does that cause surprising behavior?
    but the chances of any of those happening in real
    life seem pretty slim.
    The OLD/NEW issue is also near impossible to be problem in the real
    life, except for the misleading error message. But once users see the
    non-understandable behavior, they make lines to claim as it's a "bug".
    So we need to put effort to avoid it as possible, I believe.

    Regards,


    --
    Hitoshi Harada
  • Tom Lane at Sep 14, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    Hitoshi Harada writes:
    2010/9/15 Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>:
    In the email you referred to, Tom was concerned about the case where these
    WITH lists have different RECURSIVE declarations.  This patch makes both
    RECURSIVE if either of them is.  I can think of cases where that might lead
    to surprising behaviour, but the chances of any of those happening in real
    life seem pretty slim.
    Does that cause surprising behavior?
    My recollection is that whether a CTE is marked RECURSIVE or not affects
    its scope of visibility, so that confusing the two cases can result in
    flat-out incorrect parser behavior.

    It would probably be all right to combine the cases internally, at the
    rewriter or planner stage. It's not okay to do it in the parser, not
    even after doing parse analysis of the individual CTEs, because then it
    would be impossible for ruleutils.c to reverse-list the query correctly.

    regards, tom lane
  • Marko Tiikkaja at Sep 14, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    On 2010-09-14 10:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
    Hitoshi Harada<umi.tanuki@gmail.com> writes:
    2010/9/15 Marko Tiikkaja<marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>:
    In the email you referred to, Tom was concerned about the case where these
    WITH lists have different RECURSIVE declarations. This patch makes both
    RECURSIVE if either of them is. I can think of cases where that might lead
    to surprising behaviour, but the chances of any of those happening in real
    life seem pretty slim.
    Does that cause surprising behavior?
    My recollection is that whether a CTE is marked RECURSIVE or not affects
    its scope of visibility, so that confusing the two cases can result in
    flat-out incorrect parser behavior.
    The worst I can think of is:

    CREATE TABLE foo(a int);

    WITH t AS (SELECT * FROM foo)
    INSERT INTO bar
    WITH RECURSIVE foo (SELECT 1 AS a)
    SELECT * FROM t;

    t will actually be populated with the results of the CTE, not the table foo.

    I don't think this is a huge problem in real life, but if someone thinks
    otherwise, I think we could just error out if the lists have a different
    RECURSIVE definition.

    Anyone have a worse example? Thoughts?


    Regards,
    Marko Tiikkaja
  • Robert Haas at Sep 14, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
    On 2010-09-14 10:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

    Hitoshi Harada<umi.tanuki@gmail.com>  writes:
    2010/9/15 Marko Tiikkaja<marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>:
    In the email you referred to, Tom was concerned about the case where
    these
    WITH lists have different RECURSIVE declarations.  This patch makes both
    RECURSIVE if either of them is.  I can think of cases where that might
    lead
    to surprising behaviour, but the chances of any of those happening in
    real
    life seem pretty slim.
    Does that cause surprising behavior?
    My recollection is that whether a CTE is marked RECURSIVE or not affects
    its scope of visibility, so that confusing the two cases can result in
    flat-out incorrect parser behavior.
    The worst I can think of is:

    CREATE TABLE foo(a int);

    WITH t AS (SELECT * FROM foo)
    INSERT INTO bar
    WITH RECURSIVE foo (SELECT 1 AS a)
    SELECT * FROM t;

    t will actually be populated with the results of the CTE, not the table foo.
    Unless I'm confused, that seems pretty clearly wrong.

    --
    Robert Haas
    EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise Postgres Company
  • Tom Lane at Sep 14, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    Marko Tiikkaja writes:
    On 2010-09-14 10:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
    My recollection is that whether a CTE is marked RECURSIVE or not affects
    its scope of visibility, so that confusing the two cases can result in
    flat-out incorrect parser behavior.
    The worst I can think of is:
    CREATE TABLE foo(a int);
    WITH t AS (SELECT * FROM foo)
    INSERT INTO bar
    WITH RECURSIVE foo (SELECT 1 AS a)
    SELECT * FROM t;
    t will actually be populated with the results of the CTE, not the table foo.
    I don't think this is a huge problem in real life, but if someone thinks
    otherwise, I think we could just error out if the lists have a different
    RECURSIVE definition.
    Wrong is wrong. Doesn't matter whether it's "a huge problem in real life".

    Why is it so difficult to do this correctly?

    regards, tom lane
  • Hitoshi Harada at Sep 15, 2010 at 1:24 am

    2010/9/15 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
    Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi> writes:
    On 2010-09-14 10:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
    My recollection is that whether a CTE is marked RECURSIVE or not affects
    its scope of visibility, so that confusing the two cases can result in
    flat-out incorrect parser behavior.
    The worst I can think of is:
    CREATE TABLE foo(a int);
    WITH t AS (SELECT * FROM foo)
    INSERT INTO bar
    WITH RECURSIVE foo (SELECT 1 AS a)
    SELECT * FROM t;
    t will actually be populated with the results of the CTE, not the table foo.
    I don't think this is a huge problem in real life, but if someone thinks
    otherwise, I think we could just error out if the lists have a different
    RECURSIVE definition.
    Wrong is wrong.  Doesn't matter whether it's "a huge problem in real life".

    Why is it so difficult to do this correctly?
    Because INSERT INTO ... (SELECT|VALUES) is already a collection of
    kludge (as comments say). It was possible to parse the two WITHs
    separately, but it results in ambiguous naming issue;
    parseWithClause() asserts there's only one WITH clause in the Stmt and
    detects duplicated CTE name in it. It seems possible to call
    parseWithClause() twice by cheating ParseState and to try to find name
    duplication outside it, though it is another kludge :-(

    Now that we find the worst situation, I start to think I have to take
    the kludy way anyway.

    Regards,



    --
    Hitoshi Harada
  • Tom Lane at Sep 15, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Hitoshi Harada writes:
    2010/9/15 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
    Why is it so difficult to do this correctly?
    Because INSERT INTO ... (SELECT|VALUES) is already a collection of
    kludge (as comments say). It was possible to parse the two WITHs
    separately, but it results in ambiguous naming issue;
    parseWithClause() asserts there's only one WITH clause in the Stmt and
    detects duplicated CTE name in it.
    Well, I would think that the no-duplication rule applies to each WITH
    list separately, not both together. If you do something like

    with t1 as (select * from foo)
    select * from
    (with t2 as (select * from foo)
    select * from t1, t2) ss;

    there's no expectation that the WITH clauses can't both define the same
    name.

    regards, tom lane
  • Hitoshi Harada at Sep 15, 2010 at 4:38 am

    2010/9/15 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
    Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com> writes:
    2010/9/15 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
    Why is it so difficult to do this correctly?
    Because INSERT INTO ... (SELECT|VALUES) is already a collection of
    kludge (as comments say). It was possible to parse the two WITHs
    separately, but it results in ambiguous naming issue;
    parseWithClause() asserts there's only one WITH clause in the Stmt and
    detects duplicated CTE name in it.
    Well, I would think that the no-duplication rule applies to each WITH
    list separately, not both together.  If you do something like

    with t1 as (select * from foo)
    select * from
    (with t2 as (select * from foo)
    select * from t1, t2) ss;
    Well, I didn't know it is allowed. That would look like the way to go.

    Regards,



    --
    Hitoshi Harada
  • Hitoshi Harada at Sep 17, 2010 at 1:48 am

    2010/9/15 Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>:
    2010/9/15 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
    Well, I would think that the no-duplication rule applies to each WITH
    list separately, not both together.  If you do something like

    with t1 as (select * from foo)
    select * from
    (with t2 as (select * from foo)
    select * from t1, t2) ss;
    Well, I didn't know it is allowed. That would look like the way to go.
    I made changes to the previous version, so that it avoids to resolve
    CTE name duplication.

    regression=# with t as (select 1 as i) insert into z with t as(select
    2 as i )values ((select * from t));
    INSERT 0 1
    Time: 1.656 ms
    regression=# table z;
    f3
    ----
    2
    (1 row)

    Also, the sample Marko gave is OK.
    CREATE TABLE foo(a int);

    WITH t AS (SELECT * FROM foo)
    INSERT INTO bar
    WITH RECURSIVE foo (SELECT 1 AS a)
    SELECT * FROM t;
    Hope this covers all the cases.

    Regards,

    --
    Hitoshi Harada
  • Marko Tiikkaja at Sep 22, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    On 2010-09-17 4:48 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
    2010/9/15 Hitoshi Harada<umi.tanuki@gmail.com>:
    Well, I didn't know it is allowed. That would look like the way to go.
    I made changes to the previous version, so that it avoids to resolve
    CTE name duplication.
    This patch still doesn't address the issue Tom raised here:
    http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-09/msg00753.php

    For WITH .. INSERT .. WITH .. SELECT ..; this patch works OK, but not so
    much for VALUES:

    =# CREATE RULE barrule AS ON UPDATE TO bar DO INSTEAD
    -# WITH RECURSIVE t AS (SELECT -1)
    -# INSERT INTO bar
    -# WITH t AS (SELECT 1)
    -# VALUES((SELECT * FROM t));
    CREATE RULE

    =# \d bar
    Table "public.bar"
    Column | Type | Modifiers
    --------+---------+-----------
    a | integer |
    Rules:
    barrule AS
    ON UPDATE TO bar DO INSTEAD WITH RECURSIVE t AS (
    SELECT 1
    ), t AS (
    SELECT (-1)
    )
    INSERT INTO bar (a) WITH RECURSIVE t AS (
    SELECT 1
    ), t AS (
    SELECT (-1)
    )

    VALUES (( SELECT t."?column?"
    FROM t))


    Regards,
    Marko Tiikkaja
  • Hitoshi Harada at Sep 23, 2010 at 6:13 am

    2010/9/23 Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>:
    On 2010-09-17 4:48 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:

    2010/9/15 Hitoshi Harada<umi.tanuki@gmail.com>:
    Well, I didn't know it is allowed. That would look like the way to go.
    I made changes to the previous version, so that it avoids to resolve
    CTE name duplication.
    This patch still doesn't address the issue Tom raised here:
    http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-09/msg00753.php

    For WITH .. INSERT .. WITH .. SELECT ..; this patch works OK, but not so
    much for VALUES:

    =# CREATE RULE barrule AS ON UPDATE TO bar DO INSTEAD
    -# WITH RECURSIVE t AS (SELECT -1)
    -# INSERT INTO bar
    -# WITH t AS (SELECT 1)
    -# VALUES((SELECT * FROM t));
    CREATE RULE

    =# \d bar
    Table "public.bar"
    Column |  Type   | Modifiers
    --------+---------+-----------
    a      | integer |
    Rules:
    barrule AS
    ON UPDATE TO bar DO INSTEAD  WITH RECURSIVE t AS (
    SELECT 1
    ), t AS (
    SELECT (-1)
    )
    INSERT INTO bar (a)  WITH RECURSIVE t AS (
    SELECT 1
    ), t AS (
    SELECT (-1)
    )

    VALUES (( SELECT t."?column?"
    FROM t))
    I ran the sql and recognized what is wrong. In VALUES case, the WITH
    table "t" is copied in one list and shown up in the both of
    INSERT-level WITH and SELECT-level WITH. Since the transformation of
    WITH clause to cheat postgres is in the parser stage currently, I
    wonder if this should be done in the rewriter or the planner stage.

    Thanks for the report. Next time, please point the clear problem in
    English aside the sample.

    Regards,

    --
    Hitoshi Harada
  • Marko Tiikkaja at Sep 23, 2010 at 9:23 am

    On 2010-09-23 9:12 AM +0300, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
    Thanks for the report. Next time, please point the clear problem in
    English aside the sample.
    I apologize. The problem was exactly the one pointed out in the email I
    referred to, so I assumed that further explanation was not necessary.

    I will try to be more clear in the future.


    Regards,
    Marko Tiikkaja
  • Hitoshi Harada at Oct 3, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    2010/10/1 Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>:
    2010/9/30 Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>:
    On 2010-09-23 9:12 AM +0300, Hitoshi Harada wrote:

    Since the transformation of
    WITH clause to cheat postgres is in the parser stage currently, I
    wonder if this should be done in the rewriter or the planner stage.
    It's been about a week now.  Should we expect a new patch soon?
    Yep, I'm working it now. You'll see the conclusion in a day or so.
    ...and attached is the latest patch. It contains LIMIT etc. bug of
    INSERT fixes and I confirmed the barrule case correctly in this
    version.
    =# CREATE RULE barrule AS ON UPDATE TO bar DO INSTEAD
    -# WITH RECURSIVE t AS (SELECT -1)
    -# INSERT INTO bar
    -# WITH t AS (SELECT 1)
    -# VALUES((SELECT * FROM t));
    Regards,


    --
    Hitoshi Harada
  • Hitoshi Harada at Sep 15, 2010 at 1:04 am

    2010/9/15 Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>:
    On 2010-09-14 10:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
    My recollection is that whether a CTE is marked RECURSIVE or not affects
    its scope of visibility, so that confusing the two cases can result in
    flat-out incorrect parser behavior.
    The worst I can think of is:

    CREATE TABLE foo(a int);

    WITH t AS (SELECT * FROM foo)
    INSERT INTO bar
    WITH RECURSIVE foo (SELECT 1 AS a)
    SELECT * FROM t;

    t will actually be populated with the results of the CTE, not the table foo.
    Hmmm, that's true. But it seems unrelated to RECURSIVE option, right?

    Regards,



    --
    Hitoshi Harada
  • Marko Tiikkaja at Oct 5, 2010 at 8:55 am
    (Oops, this didn't go to -HACKERS)
    On 2010-10-04 2:46 PM +0300, Erik Rijkers wrote:
    (HEAD from git://git.postgresql.org/git/postgresql.git)

    The patch applies only with error.
    If that error is ignored, the regression 'with' test failes.
    If that is also ignored, it runs.
    This patch conflicted with Tom's WITH .. INSERT change. I tweaked the
    patch just a bit and it now passes all regression tests so I can review
    it. New version attached for documentation purposes.


    Regards,
    Marko Tiikkaja
  • Hitoshi Harada at Oct 5, 2010 at 12:38 pm
    2010/10/5 Marko Tiikkaja (Oops, this didn't go to -HACKERS)
    On 2010-10-04 2:46 PM +0300, Erik Rijkers wrote:

    (HEAD from git://git.postgresql.org/git/postgresql.git)

    The patch applies only with error.
    If that error is ignored, the regression 'with' test failes.
    If that is also ignored, it runs.
    This patch conflicted with Tom's WITH .. INSERT change.  I tweaked the
    patch just a bit and it now passes all regression tests so I can review
    it.  New version attached for documentation purposes.
    Thank you, I didn't notice that commit. In your last patch, the
    snippet to add errhint() and ref/insert sgml is unnecessary since it
    was for INSERT ... VALUES fix.

    Regards,


    --
    Hitoshi Harada
  • Marko Tiikkaja at Oct 5, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    On 2010-10-05 3:37 PM +0300, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
    2010/10/5 Marko Tiikkaja<marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>:
    This patch conflicted with Tom's WITH .. INSERT change. I tweaked the
    patch just a bit and it now passes all regression tests so I can review
    it. New version attached for documentation purposes.
    Thank you, I didn't notice that commit. In your last patch, the
    snippet to add errhint() and ref/insert sgml is unnecessary since it
    was for INSERT ... VALUES fix.
    The patch seems to work for all cases I can think of.

    I'm going to mark this one ready for committer.


    Regards,
    Marko Tiikkaja
  • Tom Lane at Oct 16, 2010 at 12:01 am

    Hitoshi Harada writes:
    2010/10/5 Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>:
    This patch conflicted with Tom's WITH .. INSERT change.  I tweaked the
    patch just a bit and it now passes all regression tests so I can review
    it.  New version attached for documentation purposes.
    Thank you, I didn't notice that commit. In your last patch, the
    snippet to add errhint() and ref/insert sgml is unnecessary since it
    was for INSERT ... VALUES fix.
    Committed with minor fixes (mostly documentation improvements).

    regards, tom lane

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedSep 13, '10 at 1:15p
activeOct 16, '10 at 12:01a
posts24
users5
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase