From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [RFC] Interface of Row Level Security |
Date: | 2012-06-01 17:56:58 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYDKHb_C4M_Uze5jTxXAcw3VqNadwS+A1D4G0zHw5KbhA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
> It may be an option to separate the case into two; a situation to execute
> the given query immediately just after optimization and never reused,
> and others.
Yes. Simon suggested exactly this a while back, and I agree with him
that we ought to have it.
> Even though the second situation, it may give us better query execution
> plan, if we try to reconstruct query plan just before executor with
> assumption that expects immutable / stable function can be replaced
> by constant value prior to execution.
> In other words, this idea tries to query optimization again on EXECUTE
> statement against to its nature, to replace immutable / stable functions
> by constant value, and to generate wiser execute plan.
> At least, it may make sense to have a flag on prepared statement to
> indicate whether it has possible better plan with this re-construction.
This sounds complex and inefficient to me.
> Then, if so, we will be able to push the stuff corresponding to
> RLSBYPASS into the query optimization, and works transparently
> for users.
You're still going to need a way to make sure that the cluster can be
dumped properly. RLSBYPASS accomplishes that; your scheme doesn't.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-06-01 18:06:24 | Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-06-01 17:51:11 | Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile |