Re: query_planner() API change

From: "Etsuro Fujita" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "'Atri Sharma'" <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "'Pg Hackers'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: query_planner() API change
Date: 2013-08-05 07:52:51
Message-ID: 007d01ce91b0$c9736e60$5c5a4b20$@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I agree with the idea,but am trying to understand why adding understanding of
> resjunk columns is a bad idea. Just for understanding purpose, could you
please
> elaborate a bit on it?

Although I may not have understood your question correctly, I think it is good
to see

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/14993.1354552292@sss.pgh.pa.us

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2013-08-05 08:00:21 Re: query_planner() API change
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2013-08-05 07:20:40 FOR UPDATE/SHARE incompatibility with GROUP BY, DISTINCT, HAVING and window functions