Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views?

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, darrenk(at)insightdist(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views?
Date: 1998-03-02 17:48:15
Message-ID: 34FAF0DF.A274665@alumni.caltech.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > > > Sounds like the plan internally grew (possible w/subselect stuff?!?) and
> > > > has gone over that 8k limit.
> > >
> > >     I think it must be due to the cleanups in the node-print and
> > >     read funcs. They now output/read ALL fields in the nodes.
> >
> > Oh, I didn't realize that the print functions were actually used for something
> > other than printing and debugging. I had started to add a few new nodes when I
> > was trying to debug the "primary key" code.
> >
> > Should we go through and bracket some of those with #ifdef QUERYDEBUG or
> > something like that? Where are they actually used? Should we try to keep these
> > at a minimum for production compiles of the system??
>
> Did you add stuff to dump that wasn't dumped before, or were they fields
> of existing structure that used to be skipped?
>
> They are used for the rewrite system and 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.

I am not absolutely certain that we are talking about the same thing, so should
confirm that it is the same routines which are causing trouble; this is the same
printing/formatting code used for "explain"??

I'd be happy to help clean them up, but I think you should help too; as I recall we
were both mucking around there about the same time ;)

                                                              - Tom


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-03-02 18:40:22
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-03-02 17:05:15
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group