| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning |
| Date: | 2023-01-20 03:58:36 |
| Message-ID: | 352017.1674187116@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 12:31 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It might be possible to incorporate this pointer into PlannedStmt
>> instead of passing it separately.
> Yeah, that would be less churn. Though, I wonder if you still hold
> that PlannedStmt should not be scribbled upon outside the planner as
> you said upthread [1]?
Well, the whole point of that rule is that the executor can't modify
a plancache entry. If the plancache itself sets a field in such an
entry, that doesn't seem problematic from here.
But there's other possibilities if that bothers you; QueryDesc
could hold the field, for example. Also, I bet we'd want to copy
it into EState for the main initialization recursion.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2023-01-20 04:28:02 | Re: Re: Support plpgsql multi-range in conditional control |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2023-01-20 03:52:07 | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning |