Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Date: 2011-02-26 08:19:23
Message-ID: 4D68B78B.6050905@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 26.02.2011 07:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> So we really need some refactoring here. I dislike adding another
> fundamental step to the ExecutorStart/ExecutorRun/ExecutorEnd sequence,
> but there may not be a better way.

Could you keep the sequence unchanged for non-EXPLAIN callers with some
refactoring? Add an exposed function like ExecutorFinishRun() that
Explain calls explicitly in the EXPLAIN ANALYZE case, and modify
ExecutorEnd to call it too, if it hasn't been called yet and the
explain-only flag isn't set.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Urbański 2011-02-26 08:34:38 Re: pl/python tracebacks
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2011-02-26 07:06:25 Re: Keywords in pg_hba.conf should be field-specific