Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification
Date: 2016-03-16 18:47:53
Message-ID: 23814.1458154073@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
>> So, even though we don't need to define multiple hook declarations,
>> I think the hook invocation is needed just after create_xxxx_paths()
>> for each. It will need to inform extension the context of hook
>> invocation, the argument list will take UpperRelationKind.

> That actually seems like a pretty good point. Otherwise you can't
> push anything from the upper rels down unless you are prepared to
> handle all of it.

I'm not exactly convinced of the use-case for that. What external
thing is likely to handle window functions but not aggregation,
for example?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-03-16 18:52:10 Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794
Previous Message Jesper Pedersen 2016-03-16 18:27:34 Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers