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
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 |