Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I added a few nodes (maybe two?), _and_ added some call-outs to existing nodes to
> > follow their children down. This stuff can be bracketed with debugging #ifdef's; it
> > was very helpful for me when debugging but it isn't good if they are adding
> > unnecessary limitations on sizes. The additional nodes I added are a "don't care";
> > it's the additional printing of child nodes (fields of existing structures) which
> > is loading things down.
> The stuff is in nodes/outfuncs.c, and is used in EXPLAIN VERBOSE. I
> question whether your structures would actually be output as part of a
> I hesitate to remove any of the outfuncs stuff. It is very useful, and
> if it is missing, things are harder to debug. Adding the fields I did
> helped solve several problems I had when testing subselects, and I know
> Vadim uses that output too. Shame it goes into the rule, but hard to
> imagine why the rule would not need it, except for fields that are only
> used by the parser, but I think we need to be complete. A better
> solution would be to allow rewrite rules to span multiple blocks, or a
> least allow them to take the space of two blocks.
Or use LO.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1998-03-03 02:29:17|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views?|
|Previous:||From: Hankin||Date: 1998-03-03 00:57:54|
|Subject: backend -> interface communication|