| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Turning off HOT/Cleanup sometimes |
| Date: | 2014-09-12 17:19:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+zgmFktL=OCcfS6=FqkhcAPizZOQChAdMeWWczURRpXQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12 September 2014 15:30, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I think there's another way to think about it: what about saying that
>> the query's target relation(s) are subject to pruning, while others
>> are not? Then you do not need an executor flag, you just need to
>> look at the estate->es_result_relations array (or maybe even only at
>> estate->es_result_relation_info).
>
> After a little bit I remembered there was already a function for this.
> So specifically, I'd suggest using ExecRelationIsTargetRelation()
> to decide whether to mark the scan as requiring pruning.
Sounds cool. Thanks both, this is sounding like a viable route now.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-09-12 17:24:53 | Re: Stating the significance of Lehman & Yao in the nbtree README |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2014-09-12 17:15:49 | Re: pgbench throttling latency limit |