Re: Properly pathify the union planner

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 at 22:47, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did wonder when first working on this patch if subquery_planner()
> should grow an extra parameter, or maybe consolidate some existing
> ones by passing some struct that provides the planner with a bit more
> context about the query.  A few of the existing parameters are likely
> candidates for being in such a struct. e.g. hasRecursion and
> tuple_fraction. A SetOperationStmt could go in there too.

The attached is roughly what I had in mind.  I've not taken the time
to see what comments need to be updated, so the attached aims only to
assist discussion.