From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Common table expression - parsing questions
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:00:36 -0400
Message-ID: <8813.1254668436@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ha9e9c$p9v$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <22431f1b0909281954t21cffc94o291002fe6b545494@mail.gmail.com>
<ha9e9c$p9v$1@ger.gmane.org>
Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net> writes:
> the6campbells wrote on 29.09.2009 04:54:
>> 2. Do you intend to remove the requirement to include the recursive
>> keyword - as other vendors allow
> The standard *requires* the keyword.
The reason the standard requires the keyword is that the WITH-name
scoping rules are different in the two cases. This means it is possible
to construct 100% valid queries that mean different things depending on
whether RECURSIVE is present or not. Admittedly, they'd be uncommon
corner cases, but the short answer is that an implementation that does
not require the keyword will fail to process some standard-conforming
queries in a standard-conforming way.
IOW, no, we are not going to change this.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, spam_eater@gmx.net
Subject: Re: Common table expression - parsing questions
In-Reply-To: <8813.1254668436@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox