From: | "Etsuro Fujita" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "'Alexander Korotkov'" <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, "'pgsql-hackers'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch for removng unused targets |
Date: | 2012-12-04 05:52:12 |
Message-ID: | 004501cdd1e3$81a618e0$84f24aa0$@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> "Etsuro Fujita" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Sorry for the delay. I've reviewed the patch. It was applied
> > successfully, and it worked well for tests I did including the example
> > you showed. I think it's worth the work, but I'm not sure you go
> > about it in the right way. (I feel the patch decreases code
> > readability more than it gives an advantage.)
>
> One thought here is that I don't particularly like adding a field like
> "resorderbyonly" to TargetEntry in the first place. That makes this
> optimization the business of the parser, which it should not be; and
> furthermore makes it incumbent on the rewriter, as well as anything else
> that manipulates parsetrees, to maintain the flag correctly while
> rearranging queries. It would be better if this were strictly the
> business of the planner.
Okay. I would like to investigate a planner-based approach that would not
require the resorderbyonly field.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2012-12-04 06:01:13 | Master fails to build without ldap headers |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2012-12-04 04:59:15 | Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility |