From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Pushdown target list below gather node (WAS Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification) |
Date: | 2016-03-17 13:54:45 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JxjLLv_Dau2ZzDh6b9oPGKrp-L0qu8fx+DzLmh0T2Bww@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > While reading above code changes, it looks like it is assuming that
subpath
> > and subplan will always be same (as it is verifying projection
capability
> > of subpath and attaching the tlist to subplan), but I think it is
possible
> > that subpath and subplan correspond to different nodes when gating
Result
> > node is added on to top of scan plan by create_scan_plan().
>
> A little more thought will show you that that's not actually relevant,
> because the tlist computation would have happened (or not) below the
> gating Result. If gating Results had an impact on
> apply_projection_to_path's decisions we'd have had to do something about
> that before this.
>
I understand that gating Results won't impact it, but it was just not
apparent from looking at the code I had referred. If you think it is quite
obvious thing, then we can leave the comment as it is.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-17 13:58:06 | Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-17 13:41:34 | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench -C -M prepared gives an error |