>I don't have a preliminary
>patch for you as I've been working on getting the non-recursive case
>working first (ie. a plain WITH).  I will keep you posted as my progress
>continues.

Do you know if your implementation will support multiple childs for each 
node or will the implementation be limited to one link from each node in the 
tree (making the tree to a list)?

I mean, given the table below:

NODEID, CHILDID
1       10
1       11
1       12
10      NULL
11      111
11      112
12      NULL
2       21
3       22
21      NULL
22      NULL
111     NULL
112     NULL

-will I then be able to fetch all childs (and grandchilds) for a given node 
in the above tree in one single query (fx. getting the whole tree when 
asking for nodeid = 1 and all its childs)?
I'm asking because I somewere heard/read that SQL3 (SQL99) does not support 
multiple childs (but I hope you will implement the "large" version).

Sincerely, Rasmus

_________________________________________________________________
F� MSN Hotmail p� mobilen http://www.msn.dk/mobile


Tue, 27 May 2003 02:30:07 +0200
"Rasmus Resen Amossen" <rresena@hotmail.com>
Re: Tom and Fernando: Status for "WITH RECURSIVE"
> Do you know if your implementation will support multiple childs for each 
> node or will the implementation be limited to one link from each node in 
> the tree (making the tree to a list)?

[...]

> -will I then be able to fetch all childs (and grandchilds) for a given node 
> in the above tree in one single query (fx. getting the whole tree when 
> asking for nodeid = 1 and all its childs)?
> I'm asking because I somewere heard/read that SQL3 (SQL99) does not support 
> multiple childs (but I hope you will implement the "large" version).

I'm not _that_ intimate with the spec, but I'm pretty sure that multiple
children are supported and I'm aiming for my implementation to do so as
well.

Andrew

Thu, 29 May 2003 08:53:08 -0400
Andrew Overholt <overholt@redhat.com>
Re: Tom and Fernando: Status for "WITH RECURSIVE"