Re: Performance issues with v18 SQL-language-function changes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Performance issues with v18 SQL-language-function changes
Date: 2025-04-16 17:43:46
Message-ID: 2031695.1744825426@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 10:38:29AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I agree that we should do something about this. I haven't reviewed
>> your patches but the approach sounds broadly reasonable.

> Yep, we went down the road in PG 18 to convert syntax, and now we have
> to fix this, or we have to revert all the PG 18 syntax changes, which
> seems like a step backward.

I'm confused? 0dca5d68d didn't have anything to do with
syntax changes, just with when planning happens.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Álvaro Herrera 2025-04-16 17:44:21 Re: pgsql: Non text modes for pg_dumpall, correspondingly change pg_restore
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-04-16 17:39:04 Re: pg_dump --if-exists --clean when drop index that is partition of a partitioned index