From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list? |
Date: | 2015-05-03 16:59:34 |
Message-ID: | 554653F6.5020402@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/03/2015 11:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 05/01/2015 07:24 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>> (A possible compromise position would be to offer a new GUC to
>>>> enable/disable the optimization globally; that would add only a reasonably
>>>> small amount of control code, and people who were afraid of the change
>>>> breaking their apps would probably want a global disable anyway.)
>> This could be a very bad, almost impossible to catch, behaviour break.
>> Even if we add the GUC, we're probably going to be imposing very
>> significant code audit costs on some users.
> On what grounds do you claim it'd be a behavior break? It's possible
> that the subquery flattening would result in less-desirable plans not
> more-desirable ones, but the results should still be correct.
>
>
I meant w.r.t. performance. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-03 17:00:48 | Re: Failure to coerce unknown type to specific type |
Previous Message | Emre Hasegeli | 2015-05-03 16:10:48 | Re: BRIN range operator class |