Re: Allowing extensions to supply operator-/function-specific info

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Allowing extensions to supply operator-/function-specific info
Date: 2019-03-04 22:52:23
Message-ID: 31607.1551739943@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca> writes:
> Gotcha, done and now have an implementation that passes all our regression tests.

Very cool! So the next step, I guess, is to address your original problem
by cranking up the cost estimates for these functions --- have you tried
that yet? In principle you should be able to do that and not have any
bad planning side-effects, but this is all pretty new territory so maybe
some problems remain to be ironed out.

BTW, if you'd like me to review the code you added for this, I'd be happy
to do so. I've never looked at PostGIS' innards, but probably I can make
sense of the code for this despite that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Paul Ramsey 2019-03-04 22:59:29 Re: Allowing extensions to supply operator-/function-specific info
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-03-04 22:41:22 Re: pg_partition_tree crashes for a non-defined relation