From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Custom Plan node |
Date: | 2013-09-10 10:33:14 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobY=jQ_chRsag7TivozpNEVf3k=tCrggSaKVbCkxiPQYA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Let me be clear that I'm not against the concept of custom plan nodes.
> But it was obvious from the beginning that making the executor deal with
> them would be much easier than making the planner deal with them. I don't
> think we should commit a bunch of executor-side infrastructure in the
> absence of any (ahem) plan for doing something realistic on the planner
> side. Either that infrastructure will go unused, or we'll be facing a
> continual stream of demands for doubtless-half-baked planner changes
> so that people can do something with it.
>
> I'd be willing to put in the infrastructure as soon as it's clear that we
> have a way forward, but not if it's never going to be more than a kluge.
Fair enough, I think. So the action item for KaiGai is to think of
how the planner integration might work.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-09-10 10:35:15 | Re: Protocol forced to V2 in low-memory conditions? |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2013-09-10 10:31:22 | Re: Protocol forced to V2 in low-memory conditions? |