From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Rewrite, normal execution vs. EXPLAIN ANALYZE |
Date: | 2010-07-23 19:00:47 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinLQ5idfWAU5n7g==EerL0RdxPp7gbyN65zZ0xP@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Marko Tiikkaja
<marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:
> On 7/23/2010 8:52 PM, David Fetter wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 08:43:35PM +0300, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>>>
>>> Did I misunderstand the code? And if I didn't, why do we do this
>>> differently?
>>
>> You mentioned in IRC that this was in aid of getting wCTEs going. How
>> are these things connected?
>
> Currently, I'm trying to make wCTEs behave a bit like RULEs do. But if
> every rewrite product takes a new snapshot, wCTEs will behave very
> unpredictably.
>
> But because EXPLAIN ANALYZE does *not* take a new snapshot for every rewrite
> product, I'm starting to think that maybe this isn't the behaviour we wanted
> to begin with?
Where should I be looking in the code for this?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-07-23 19:04:59 | Re: permission inconsistency with functions |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-07-23 18:55:56 | Re: permission inconsistency with functions |