| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |