Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 352017.1674187116@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 12:31 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> It might be possible to incorporate this pointer into PlannedStmt >> instead of passing it separately. > Yeah, that would be less churn. Though, I wonder if you still hold > that PlannedStmt should not be scribbled upon outside the planner as > you said upthread [1]? Well, the whole point of that rule is that the executor can't modify a plancache entry. If the plancache itself sets a field in such an entry, that doesn't seem problematic from here. But there's other possibilities if that bothers you; QueryDesc could hold the field, for example. Also, I bet we'd want to copy it into EState for the main initialization recursion. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: