Re: plan shape work

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexandra Wang <alexandra(dot)wang(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "bruce(at)momjian(dot)us" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: plan shape work
Date: 2025-09-29 14:27:57
Message-ID: 196262.1759156077@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I don't really understand why you're so fixed on this point. I think
> that the code as I wrote it is quite a normal way to write code for
> that kind of thing.

Also, we have numerous other places that generate de-duplicated names
in pretty much this way (ruleutils.c's set_rtable_names being a very
closely related case). I don't think we should go inventing some
random new way to do that.

If it turns out that Robert's code is too slow in practice, I would
prefer to deal with that by using a hashtable to keep track of
already-allocated names, not by changing the user-visible behavior.
I'm content to wait for field complaints before building such logic
though, because I really doubt that queries would ever have so
many subplans as to be a problem.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2025-09-29 14:43:35 Re: Mutable listen_addresses GUC
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2025-09-29 14:19:24 Re: Use "?=" operator for a contrib makefile in documentation