Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Date
Msg-id 6877.1298696143@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> The first solution that comes to mind is to pay attention to the
> interdependencies of the CTEs, and perform the cleanup in an appropriate
> order (here, the ModifyTable for y needs to be cycled first).

Doh ... actually, we already *are* ordering the CTEs in dependency
order, so it's a one-liner fix to do the shutdowns in reverse order.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL FDW update