From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API) |
Date: | 2015-03-13 18:31:50 |
Message-ID: | 5451.1426271510@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Another bit of this that I think we could commit without fretting
> about it too much is the code adding set_join_pathlist_hook. This is
> - I think - analogous to set_rel_pathlist_hook, and like that hook,
> could be used for other purposes than custom plan generation - e.g. to
> delete paths we do not want to use. I've extracted this portion of
> the patch and adjusted the comments; if there are no objections, I
> will commit this bit also.
I don't object to the concept, but I think that is a pretty bad place
to put the hook call: add_paths_to_joinrel is typically called multiple
(perhaps *many*) times per joinrel and thus this placement would force
any user of the hook to do a lot of repetitive work.
I think the right placement is just before the set_cheapest call for
each joinrel, just as we did with set_rel_pathlist_hook. It looks
like those calls are at:
allpaths.c:1649 (in standard_join_search)
geqo_eval.c:270 (in merge_clump)
There are a couple of other set_cheapest calls that probably don't need
hooked, since they are for dummy (proven empty) rels, and it's not clear
how a hook could improve on an empty plan.
Also, this would leave you with a much shorter parameter list ;-) ...
really no reason to pass more than root and rel.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-03-13 18:41:41 | Re: get_object_address support for additional object types |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2015-03-13 17:41:46 | Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? |