Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRDS4PoM2inJ9V981OxgD+0h3kg5vrAm5EW7V7SoKt_g_g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2017-04-30 6:28 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> - as you noted, it is hard to decide when it's worth inlining vs
> materializing for CTE terms referenced more than once.
[ raised eyebrow... ] Please explain why the answer isn't trivially
"never".
There's already a pretty large hill to climb here in the way of
breaking peoples' expectations about CTEs being optimization
fences. Breaking the documented semantics about CTEs being
single-evaluation seems to me to be an absolute non-starter.
why we cannot to introduce GUC option - enable_cteoptfence ?
Regards
Pavel
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: