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

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features?

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features?
Date: 2006-07-30 01:37:35
Message-ID: 44CC0D5F.7080105@joeconway.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docspgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> 
>>>I'm afraid though that after 2 or so days heading down the last path you 
>>>suggested (namely making a new jointree leaf node) I was having trouble, 
>>>and at the same time came to the conclusion that adding a new RTE was 
>>>alot cleaner and made more sense to me. So I'm hoping you won't want to 
>>>send me back to the drawing board again. I believe I have cleaned up the 
>>>things you objected to:
> 
> 
> I was just objecting to having both a new RTE type and a new jointree
> node type --- you only need one or the other.  Opting for the new RTE
> type is fine with me, and it probably is a bit cleaner at the end of
> the day.

Great!

> I still dislike the way you're doing things in the executor though.
> I don't see the point of using the execScan.c machinery; most of the
> time that'll be useless overhead.  As I said before, I think the right
> direction here is to split Result into two single-purpose node types
> and make the non-filter version capable of taking a list of targetlists.

OK.

> As far as reducing memory use goes, it seems to me that there's no need
> for the individual "targetlists" to have ResTarget/TargetEntry
> decoration.  For the simple case where the expressions are just Const
> nodes, this could save something like a third of the space (there's also
> a List node per item, which we can't do much about).  I think we'd have
> to gin up a fake targetlist to attach to the Plan node, but there'd be
> only one.

OK, I'll take a look at that (actually I was just in that general 
vicinity anyway).

> Since the result-node split is my hot button, I'm willing to volunteer
> to make it happen.  Do you want to concentrate on the remaining
> parser-area issues and leave the executor part to me?
> 

Sure, sounds good to me.

Joe

In response to

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2006-07-30 01:45:44
Subject: Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [PATCHES]
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-07-30 01:35:24
Subject: Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [PATCHES] 8.2 features?)

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-07-30 01:44:10
Subject: Re: New variable server_version_num
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-07-30 01:35:24
Subject: Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [PATCHES] 8.2 features?)

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-07-30 01:44:10
Subject: Re: New variable server_version_num
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-07-30 01:35:24
Subject: Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [PATCHES] 8.2 features?)

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