From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>,
        Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
        Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>,
        David Fetter <david@fetter.org>,
        Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
In-reply-to: <20190129045158.GD3121@paquier.xyz>
References: <20190111190403.77ye7m5mxypxsf4l@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CA+TgmobVMPX1wJxPaRQ=FZBzp-AQ=JWK=bzxztqwj=MsOsrnrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00818be9-2f63-f584-efcd-d97ee0662905@proxel.se>
 <CA+TgmoapASa3RQi=DuSikPoPF4363czSD8KxbOxsfW5XmO3WpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5715d93e-6ebc-be17-c2c3-56a873100a38@proxel.se>
 <29576.1548084476@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoYZYj8eLdV9AcROtmPW4AJA7ANh3xQh7BcafaPfCnmv+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <12408.1548707732@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <c16909ed-0789-5199-f315-!5433d83a0026@2ndquadrant.com>
 <32184.1548713132@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20190129045158.GD3121@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:51:58 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <17786.1548791564.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:52:44 -0500
Message-ID: <17787.1548791564@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 05:05:32PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I thought about that too, but it doesn't seem like an improvement.
>> If the query is very long (which isn't unlikely) I think people would
>> prefer to see the option(s) up front.

> Having these options at the front of the WITH clause looks more
> natural to me.

Well, we've managed to get agreement on the semantics of this thing,
let's not get hung up on the syntax details.

I propose that we implement and document this as

	WITH ctename AS [ MATERIALIZE { ON | OFF } ] ( query )

which is maybe a bit clunky but not awful, and it would leave room
to generalize it to "AS [ optionname optionvalue [ , ... ] ]" if we
ever need to.  Looking at the precedent of e.g. EXPLAIN, we could
probably allow just "MATERIALIZE" as well, with the boolean value
defaulting to true.

			regards, tom lane