| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: review: Non-recursive processing of AND/OR lists |
| Date: | 2014-06-16 19:58:09 |
| Message-ID: | 19203.1402948689@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> writes:
>> I tried to eliminate the 'pending' list, but I don't see a way around it.
>> We need temporary storage somewhere to store the branches encountered on
>> the right; in recursion case the call stack was serving that purpose.
> I still think we should fix this in the grammar, rather than introducing
> complicated logic to try to get rid of the recursion later. For example,
> as attached.
I went looking for (and found) some additional obsoleted comments, and
convinced myself that ruleutils.c is okay as-is, and pushed this.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-06-16 19:59:00 | Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-06-16 19:49:57 | Re: avoiding tuple copying in btree index builds |