Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 14474.1430668160@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list? (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > On 05/01/2015 07:24 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> (A possible compromise position would be to offer a new GUC to >>> enable/disable the optimization globally; that would add only a reasonably >>> small amount of control code, and people who were afraid of the change >>> breaking their apps would probably want a global disable anyway.) > This could be a very bad, almost impossible to catch, behaviour break. > Even if we add the GUC, we're probably going to be imposing very > significant code audit costs on some users. On what grounds do you claim it'd be a behavior break? It's possible that the subquery flattening would result in less-desirable plans not more-desirable ones, but the results should still be correct. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: