From: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: inheritance, and plans |
Date: | 2009-02-08 19:37:33 |
Message-ID: | 2f4958ff0902081137x5d61909cw862e3b06f3de422@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It's possible that there are specific cases where the UNION optimization
> checks could allow domains to be treated as their base types, but
> blindly smashing both sides of the check to base is going to break more
> cases than it fixes.
What my little patch was trying to proof, is whether, that part of
planner could construct the plan better, if it had a notion of base
type in domains.
Which I still believe it should do, based on my simple test.
Again, I am not saying, that postgresql should treat domains just as
an alias to base type, but I do believe that it should at least
construct plan better - based on the base type, not the domain's oid.
If you know what it might possibly break, can you give some examples please ?
--
GJ
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mario Splivalo | 2009-02-09 09:28:15 | Re: Postgres not willing to use an index? |
Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2009-02-08 18:58:51 | Re: inheritance, and plans |