Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E5463347E for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2009 12:00:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13512-07 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2009 15:00:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48725632F4C for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2009 12:00:41 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n94F0aeo008814; Sun, 4 Oct 2009 11:00:36 -0400 (EDT) To: Thomas Kellerer cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Common table expression - parsing questions In-reply-to: References: <22431f1b0909281954t21cffc94o291002fe6b545494@mail.gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Kellerer message dated "Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:10:52 +0200" Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:00:36 -0400 Message-ID: <8813.1254668436@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.599 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200910/20 X-Sequence-Number: 33219 Thomas Kellerer 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