From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PlaceHolderVars versus join ordering |
Date: | 2010-09-28 01:27:27 |
Message-ID: | 12641.1285637247@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:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> This is a larger change than I would prefer to back-patch, but the only
>> less-invasive alternative I can see is to lobotomize the PlaceHolderVar
>> mechanism entirely by reverting to 8.3-style logic wherein we prevented
>> pullup of sub-selects that would require introduction of placeholders.
>> That would undo a significant optimization feature of 8.4, one that
>> I believe we're now relying on for reasonable performance of some system
>> views.
>>
>> Thoughts, better ideas?
> Personally, I would rather back-patch a more invasive bug fix than a
> performance regression.
Yeah, me too. Attached is a draft patch against HEAD --- comments?
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
placeholder-delay-1.patch | text/x-patch | 27.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2010-09-28 02:05:07 | Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-28 01:07:33 | Re: security label support, revised |