From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane), Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: inheritance, and plans |
Date: | 2009-02-07 17:58:56 |
Message-ID: | 87eiyaqgbj.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
[domain -> base type conversion interfering with optimization]
Tom> You seem to be laboring under the delusion that this is
Tom> considered a bug.
Of course it's a bug, or at least a missing feature - there is no
justification for putting performance deathtraps in the way of using
domains.
Tom> It's a necessary semantic restriction, because the pushed-down
Tom> expression could mean different things when applied to different
Tom> data types.
How?
Type-dependent selection of operators has already been done as part of
parse analysis, no? And the domain -> base conversion is purely a
relabelling, no? So what semantic change is possible as a result?
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-08 18:34:05 | Re: inheritance, and plans |
Previous Message | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz | 2009-02-07 17:52:56 | Re: inheritance, and plans |