From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list? |
Date: | 2015-05-03 15:49:20 |
Message-ID: | 14474.1430668160@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 05/01/2015 07:24 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> (A possible compromise position would be to offer a new GUC to
>>> enable/disable the optimization globally; that would add only a reasonably
>>> small amount of control code, and people who were afraid of the change
>>> breaking their apps would probably want a global disable anyway.)
> This could be a very bad, almost impossible to catch, behaviour break.
> Even if we add the GUC, we're probably going to be imposing very
> significant code audit costs on some users.
On what grounds do you claim it'd be a behavior break? It's possible
that the subquery flattening would result in less-desirable plans not
more-desirable ones, but the results should still be correct.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Emre Hasegeli | 2015-05-03 16:10:48 | Re: BRIN range operator class |
Previous Message | Sergey Grinko | 2015-05-03 10:15:28 | Re: Loss of some parts of the function definition |