Re: upper planner path-ification

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: upper planner path-ification
Date: 2015-05-17 15:51:10
Message-ID: 30470.1431877870@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom> So I'm all for refactoring, but I think it will happen as a natural
> Tom> byproduct of path-ification, and otherwise would be rather forced.

> Hrm, ok. So for the near future, we should leave it more or less as-is?
> We don't have a timescale yet, but it's our intention to submit a
> hashagg support patch for grouping sets as soon as time permits.

Well, mumble. I keep saying that I want to tackle path-ification in
that area, and I keep not finding the time to actually do it. So I'm
hesitant to tell you that you should wait on it. But certainly I think
that it'll be a lot easier to get hashagg costing done in that framework
than in what currently exists.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-05-17 16:11:46 Re: upper planner path-ification
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2015-05-17 15:41:17 Re: upper planner path-ification