From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning |
Date: | 2022-12-06 19:00:33 |
Message-ID: | 20221206190033.mr5fiucsj4izhc6k@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I find the API of GetCachedPlans a little weird after this patch. I
think it may be better to have it return a pointer of a new struct --
one that contains both the CachedPlan pointer and the list of pruning
results. (As I understand, the sole caller that isn't interested in the
pruning results, SPI_plan_get_cached_plan, can be explained by the fact
that it knows there won't be any. So I don't think we need to worry
about this case?)
And I think you should make that struct also be the last argument of
PortalDefineQuery, so you don't need the separate
PortalStorePartitionPruneResults function -- because as far as I can
tell, the callers that pass a non-NULL pointer there are the exactly
same that later call PortalStorePartitionPruneResults.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La primera ley de las demostraciones en vivo es: no trate de usar el sistema.
Escriba un guión que no toque nada para no causar daños." (Jakob Nielsen)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-12-06 19:08:43 | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-12-06 18:59:05 | Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again |