Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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