<story><title>Not all graphs are trees</title><url>https://buttondown.email/jaffray/archive/not-all-graphs-are-trees/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>codeflo</author><text>This made me scratch my head:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Even in a language like Rust, which has not yet implemented mutable aliasing (an oft-requested feature stuck at the RFC stage)&lt;p&gt;Disallowing mutable aliasing is in fact the whole point of Rust. Perhaps it’s “requested” by people still learning the language? Is the “not yet implemented” part meant as irony? Does the author mean something else?</text></comment>
<story><title>Not all graphs are trees</title><url>https://buttondown.email/jaffray/archive/not-all-graphs-are-trees/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>srcreigh</author><text>Can someone explain the relationship between implementing WITH (…) AS X … and integer linear programs?&lt;p&gt;I wish this post had more examples of concrete non-tree queries. Is cross-joining a CTE to itself realistic?&lt;p&gt;Imo this discussion seems to assume multiple references of a CTE contain many of the same rows with different transforms which are later joined.. what’s an actual example of this? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it&lt;p&gt;Usually CTEs are shorthand for doing a few joins. And when you reference them multiple times, it’s almost always with different rows in the CTE table. AKA little-no reuse potential. Postgres WITH AS NOT MATERIALIZED of course</text></comment>