From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Status report on writeable CTEs |
Date: | 2010-07-16 15:52:08 |
Message-ID: | 4C408028.8080503@cs.helsinki.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/16/10 6:15 PM +0300, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> Sorry it's not relevant to the topic you post but ..
Relevant enough :-)
> .. it seems you're
> going to add new executor node called DtScanNode and let it hold
> tuplestore passed by the Query indicated by index number. However, I
> suppose there are other ways:
>
> 1. Use MaterialNode instead of adding DtScanNode. Since MaterialNode
> is exsiting one that work with single tuplestore, it might be sane to
> modify this so that it accepts tuplestore from Query instead of its
> child node.
I thought about this, but I don't necessarily like the idea of
overloading executor nodes.
> 2. Use temp table instead of tuplestore list. Since we agreed we need
> to execute each plan one by one starting and shutting down executor,
> it now looks very simple strategy.
I didn't look at this because I thought using a "tuplestore receiver" in
the portal logic was simple enough. Any thoughts on how this would work?
> I'm not familiar with the long discussion on this feature so not sure
> they are possible, but ISTM they are enough to be discussed (or
> discussed already?).
We haven't discussed this part of the design yet.. Now is a good time
to do it.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2010-07-16 16:02:03 | Re: SHOW TABLES |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-07-16 15:46:32 | Re: SHOW TABLES |