Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 554653F6.5020402@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/03/2015 11:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. > > I meant w.r.t. performance. Sorry if that wasn't clear. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: