Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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