| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |