Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
От | Merlin Moncure |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHyXU0zVzBBeW+xpKLxWWwYD5pyK2+KwpM26JM=eZ58hfYOf4g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 6:10 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > My read of the concensus (in which I am in the majority, so I might be > biased) is that we do want inlining to be the default. We were thinking > that it'd be necessary to provide a way to force inlining on the SQL > level for individual CTEs. This is correct. Suggesting that we need syntax to disabling inlining at the CTE level, and/or GUC to control the behavior (which I agree should be defualted to inline). Something like enable_cte_inline=true; I'm not very enthusiastic about explicitly breaking intentionally introduced optimization fences and then forcing people to inject our OFFSET 0 hack. This is just too unpleasant to contemplate...what happens if we come up with a better implemntation of OFFSET? yuck. Thanks for providing this, CTE plan problems are a real bugaboo. merlin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: