Re: planner missing a trick for foreign tables w/OR conditions

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" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Eric Ridge <e_ridge(at)tcdi(dot)com>
Subject: Re: planner missing a trick for foreign tables w/OR conditions
Date: 2013-12-17 19:20:18
Message-ID: 14601.1387308018@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 Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> (I wonder if it'd be worth inserting a check that
>> there's not already a manually-generated equivalent clause, too ...)

> Sounds a little too clever IMHO.

The argument for doing it is that we might otherwise find ourselves
degrading the plans for previously-manually-optimized queries. On the
other hand, the existing index-driven code has probably forestalled the
need for many people to do that; at least, I don't recall seeing much
discussion of doing that sort of thing by hand.

I'm happy to leave the issue out of the first version of the patch,
anyway.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-12-17 19:26:36 Re: planner missing a trick for foreign tables w/OR conditions
Previous Message Adrian Klaver 2013-12-17 19:01:22 Re: SSL: better default ciphersuite