|From:||Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>|
|To:||Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> writes:
Andreas> I believe I have fixed these except for the comment on the
Andreas> conditions for when we inline.
Andreas> Andrew Gierth: Why did you chose to not inline on FOR UPDATE
Andreas> but inline volatile functions? I feel that this might be
Andreas> inconsistent since in both cases the query in the CTE can
Andreas> change behavior if the planner pushes a WHERE clause into the
Andreas> subquery, but maybe I am missing something.
I chose not to inline FOR UPDATE because it was an obvious compatibility
break, potentially changing the set of locked rows, and it was an easy
condition to test.
I did not test for volatile functions simply because this was a very
early stage of the project (which wasn't my project, I was just
assisting someone else). I left the comment "this likely needs some
additional checks" there for a reason.
|Next Message||Edmund Horner||2019-01-01 00:53:06||Re: Joins on TID|
|Previous Message||Alvaro Herrera||2019-01-01 00:38:58||Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY]|