| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: machine-readable explain output |
| Date: | 2009-06-16 15:19:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4A37B818.7080104@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>
>> On 06/16/2009 04:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>>> Note that even in this case we DON'T rely on the ordering of the
>>> nodes. The inner<plan> nodes have child nodes which contain their
>>> relationship to the parent.
>>>
>
>
>> Not in the case of Append nodes, but I fail to see a problem there, so...
>>
>
> The order of Append child nodes is in fact significant. If this
> representation loses that information then it needs to be fixed.
> However, is it really so bad to be relying on node order for this?
>
>
>
No, if there is a genuine sequence of items then relying on node order
is just fine. My earlier (mistaken) reference was to possibly relying on
node order for a non-sequence relationship.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-06-16 15:20:22 | Re: machine-readable explain output |
| Previous Message | genie.japo | 2009-06-16 15:16:58 | Uninstallation error |