| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce "Var IS [NOT] NULL" quals during constant folding |
| Date: | 2025-03-21 16:12:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYRJsmjXLSutb4TYvoN-M400A5cAf4Povycb_7=9xPZ=g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 10:21 AM Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Not quite sure if this is something we need to worry about.
I haven't really dug into this but I bet it's not that serious, in the
sense that we could probably work around it with more logic if we
really need to.
However, I'm a bit concerned about the overall premise of the patch
set. It feels like it is moving something that really ought to happen
at optimization time back to parse time. I have a feeling that's going
to break something, although I am not sure right now exactly what.
Wouldn't it be better to have this still happen in the planner, but
sooner than it does now?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2025-03-21 16:14:12 | Re: Why doesn't GiST VACUUM require a super-exclusive lock, like nbtree VACUUM? |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2025-03-21 16:03:18 | Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression |