Re: Pushdown target list below gather node (WAS Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Pushdown target list below gather node (WAS Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20081.1458147468@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Pushdown target list below gather node (WAS Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Pushdown target list below gather node (WAS Re: WIP:
Upper planner pathification)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> And there is a larger problem with this: I'm not sure that it's >> appropriate for apply_projection_to_path to assume that the subpath is not >> shared with any other purposes. If it is shared, and we update the >> subpath's target in-place, we just broke the other path chains. > That's true. I don't see an obvious hazard here, because the Gather's > child came from the rel's partial_pathlist, and the only way it gets > used from there is to stick the Gather on top of it. So it really > can't show up anywhere else. I think. The key question I think is could there ever be more than one Gather sharing the same subpath? > (To some lesser extent, apply_projection_to_path is always > scary like that.) Right, that's why there's also create_projection_path for when you aren't sure. > Mmmph. That seems like a 2-bit solution, but I guess it would work. > What if we taught create_projection_plan() to elide the Result node in > that case? Yeah, I was thinking about the same thing. The comment block above where you're looking would need some adjustment. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: