| From: | Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jonathan Marks <jonathanaverymarks(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Forcing index usage |
| Date: | 2019-04-17 17:16:28 |
| Message-ID: | CAHOFxGry6pC4AVSY04phOa_zEJ+hqUO9gOvSQdGVABEP5NHCYA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
>
> > * Michael Lewis (mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com) wrote:
> > > Thanks for that advance warning since it is a handy option to force the
> > > planning barrier in my experience. What's a resource to see other
> coming
> > > changes in v12 especially changes to default behavior like this? Will
> there
> > > be a new cte_collapse_limit setting or similar?
> >
> > Check the release notes.
>
> Yes, once they are written in a few weeks.
>
Thanks for clarifying Bruce. On #postgresql I was directed to the
development docs ( https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/queries-with.html
) and got the additional information I needed. It is unfortunate there is
no MATERIALIZED keyword in v11 to ensure I can preserve existing behavior
during upgrade to v12 on queries that seem to benefit greatly from that
optimization barrier, but I can appreciate why that decision was made.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2019-04-17 19:43:48 | Re: Forcing index usage |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2019-04-17 17:07:25 | Re: Forcing index usage |