| From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: query_planner() API change |
| Date: | 2013-08-05 06:46:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAOeZVieabfN3nV9tckELkQQiLkzCuYGE7ax3BLR9dMz9sZe1pg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> While we could complicate query_planner()'s API even more to add some
> understanding of unnecessary resjunk items, I think this is probably
> the straw that breaks the camel's back for the current approach here.
> There is already a comment like this in query_planner():
>
> * This introduces some undesirable coupling between this code and
> * grouping_planner, but the alternatives seem even uglier; we couldn't
> * pass back completed paths without making these decisions here.
I agree with the idea,but am trying to understand why adding
understanding of resjunk columns is a bad idea. Just for understanding
purpose, could you please elaborate a bit on it?
Regards,
Atri
--
Regards,
Atri
l'apprenant
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2013-08-05 07:07:41 | Re: query_planner() API change |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-08-05 06:27:22 | Re: Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]) |