Re: Removing unneeded self joins

From: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark(dot)cfm(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michał Kłeczek <michal(at)kleczek(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Removing unneeded self joins
Date: 2024-05-06 19:27:28
Message-ID: CAPpHfduadUGtqCGGnTmQTSQMPhjGKokDxiWd6h++LcotH92XHg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 5:44 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I want to go on record right now as disagreeing with the plan proposed
> in the commit message for the revert commit, namely, committing this
> again early in the v18 cycle. I don't think Tom would have proposed
> reverting this feature unless he believed that it had more serious
> problems than could be easily fixed in a short period of time. I think
> that concern is well-founded, given the number of fixes that were
> committed. It seems likely that the patch needs significant rework and
> stabilization before it gets committed again, and I think it shouldn't
> be committed again without explicit agreement from Tom or one of the
> other committers who have significant experience with the query
> planner. That is not to say that I don't approve generally of the idea
> of committing things earlier in the release cycle: I certainly do. It
> gives us more time to shake out problems with patches before we ship.
> But it only makes sense if we collectively believe that the patch is
> mostly correct, and only needs fine-tuning, and I think there are good
> reasons to believe that we shouldn't have that level of confidence in
> this case.

I agree it was a hurry to put the plan into commit message. I think
Tom already gave valuable feedback [1] and probably we will get more.
So, plan is to be decided. One way or the other I'm not going to
re-commit this without explicit Tom's consent.

Links.
1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3622801.1715010885%40sss.pgh.pa.us

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message SAIKIRAN AVULA 2024-05-06 19:56:56 Incorrect explain output for updates/delete operations with returning-list on partitioned tables
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-05-06 19:26:52 Re: On disable_cost