Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification
Date: 2016-03-07 16:09:22
Message-ID: 21803.1457366962@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The currently-committed code generates paths where nested loops and
> hash joins get pushed beneath the Gather node, but does not generate
> paths where merge joins have been pushed beneath the Gather node. And
> the reason I didn't try to generate those paths is because I believe
> they will almost always suck.

That's a perfectly reasonable engineering judgment (and especially so
for a first release). What I'd really like to see documented is how
that conclusion is related, or not, to the rules about how path nodes
should be decorated with parallel_safe, parallel_degree, etc annotations.
The existing documentation is barely adequate to explain what those fields
mean for primitive scan nodes; it's impossible for anyone but you to
know what they are supposed to mean for joins and higher-level nodes.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2016-03-07 16:34:52 Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification
Previous Message Joe Conway 2016-03-07 16:02:45 Re: Badly designed error reporting code in controldata_utils.c