| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: troubleshooting pointers |
| Date: | 2002-05-12 03:36:01 |
| Message-ID: | 3CDDE321.70709@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Um, that's probably not it then. Rescan would only come into play for
> a plan node that's being used as the inside of a join, or some other
> contexts more complicated than this. A simple view ought to make no
> difference at all in the generated plan --- perhaps there's some bit
> of the planner that you missed teaching about function RTEs or
> FunctionScan plan nodes?
>
> Anyway, I plan to review and apply your patch today, if I don't run
> into any major problems. Will look to see if I see a reason for the
> view trouble.
(Sorry for the slow response -- been out all day)
Actually I found late last night that when the view is used, the RTE is
a RangeVar, so the RangeFunction code never gets executed. So I think
your comment above is right on. That may well explain both problems.
I'll start looking again tonight.
Thanks,
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rajesh Kumar Mallah. | 2002-05-12 05:46:30 | Re: Further info : Very high load average but no cpu utilization ? |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-05-12 03:28:58 | Re: Set Returning Functions (SRF) - request for patch review |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-12 15:34:24 | Re: troubleshooting pointers |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-05-12 03:28:58 | Re: Set Returning Functions (SRF) - request for patch review |