Re: TopPlan, again

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: TopPlan, again
Date: 2007-02-20 00:19:55
Message-ID: 7942.1171930795@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> After looking over the code it seems that the executor needs a limited
>> subset of the Query fields, namely
>> ...
>> which I think we should put into a new TopPlan node type.

> All else sounds good, but why would we be caching a plan that used these
> fields?

Um, what's your point? I certainly have no desire to support two
different Executor APIs depending on whether we think the command might
be worth cacheing or not.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-02-20 00:26:09 Re: ToDo: add documentation for operator IS OF
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2007-02-20 00:08:33 Re: Plan invalidation design