Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views?

> I added a few nodes (maybe two?), _and_ added some call-outs to existing nodes to
> follow their children down. This stuff can be bracketed with debugging #ifdef's; it
> was very helpful for me when debugging but it isn't good if they are adding
> unnecessary limitations on sizes. The additional nodes I added are a "don't care";
> it's the additional printing of child nodes (fields of existing structures) which
> is loading things down.

The stuff is in nodes/outfuncs.c, and is used in EXPLAIN VERBOSE. I
question whether your structures would actually be output as part of a
rule.

I hesitate to remove any of the outfuncs stuff. It is very useful, and
if it is missing, things are harder to debug. Adding the fields I did
helped solve several problems I had when testing subselects, and I know
Vadim uses that output too. Shame it goes into the rule, but hard to
imagine why the rule would not need it, except for fields that are only
used by the parser, but I think we need to be complete. A better
solution would be to allow rewrite rules to span multiple blocks, or a
least allow them to take the space of two blocks.

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)