| From: | "Eric B(dot) Ridge" <ebr(at)tcdi(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Postgresql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Query plans for plpgsql triggers |
| Date: | 2006-03-25 05:46:49 |
| Message-ID: | 10F0FB1B-4323-4954-AA9A-2028EC89EF96@tcdi.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mar 25, 2006, at 12:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> This is the sort of detail that you really should not omit.
Yeah, it didn't even occur to me until I ran the "explain execute foo
(42)" thing you suggested. We've been using these update rules for
so long that I just think of the views as regular tables (rules are
great, btw).
> If you were using something newer than 7.4 then I'd ask for a complete
> test case so I could look into improving the behavior --- but as it
> is,
> I'd first suggest upgrading and seeing if the problem is already
> fixed.
We're working towards an upgrade to 8.1.3, and a new schema. Both of
which will likely provide all sorts of new "behaviors."
I'm now curious if complex rules can influence the planner in
negative ways. I don't see how they could -- I've never seen
unexpected EXPLAIN output via psql. However, I can try to work up a
test case against 7.4.12 if you think it'll be beneficial. It'll
take a few days and if you wanted 2 million-ish sample rows, be very
large.
eric
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-25 05:58:15 | Re: Query plans for plpgsql triggers |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-25 05:24:04 | Re: Query plans for plpgsql triggers |