From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Julius Stroffek <Julius(dot)Stroffek(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Optimizer hook |
Date: | 2007-09-25 22:49:30 |
Message-ID: | 8067.1190760570@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Julius Stroffek <Julius(dot)Stroffek(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> Parts of the result path might be found by geqo and parts of it by
> regular algorithm.
Why would you care? Seems like forcing that to not happen is actively
making it stupider.
> If there is no way of how to make the code work then it makes no sense
> to put the hook to the place I am proposing. It works for me, but I have
> not tested that very well yet. If I would swap calls to geqo
> and make_one_rel_by_joins it will not work. Therefore there might be
> an issue I do not know about yet.
Well, I can see one likely problem: list_copy is a shallow copy and
thus doesn't ensure that the second set of functions sees the same input
data structures as the first. I know that geqo has to go through some
special pushups to perform multiple invocations of the base planner,
and I suspect you need that here too. Look at geqo_eval().
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2007-09-25 23:08:33 | Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock' |
Previous Message | Julius Stroffek | 2007-09-25 22:18:39 | Re: Optimizer hook |