From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: enable_joinremoval |
Date: | 2010-03-29 14:42:19 |
Message-ID: | 20100329144219.GA3925@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane escribió:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> So I think we need a parameter for join removal also.
>
> > I had this in my original patch but Tom wanted it taken out.
>
> And I still don't want it. We are NOT going in the direction of adding
> an enable_ knob for every single planner activity --- do you have the
> faintest idea how many there would be? We have such knobs for a small
> number of cases where it's arguable that the action might be the wrong
> thing for a particular query. Join removal, if applicable, can't
> possibly be the wrong choice; it's better than every other join strategy.
It seems that what's really needed is some debug output to be able to
find out what it did.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-29 14:43:14 | Re: Using HStore type in TSearch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-29 14:36:14 | Re: enable_joinremoval |