From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How to share the result data of separated plan |
Date: | 2010-11-07 22:35:39 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimFBLsNQAhLhfWkkZVTGYDxvNGJpUL_o7Pb+GR=@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
>> On 2010-11-07 6:23 PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Um ... why? I thought the whole point of breaking out ModifyTable
>>> as a separate node type was so that a query involving writeable CTEs
>>> would still be just one plan tree.
>
>> We tried that for 9.0 and it didn't work. Almost all work for 9.1 has
>> been spent on creating an infrastructure for running the executor
>> separately for every WITH list element when wCTEs are present.
>
> I guess I shoulda been paying closer attention :-(. That really, really
> seems like fundamentally the wrong direction. What was it that was
> unfixable about the other way? If it is unfixable, should we revert
> ModifyTable?
The relevant thread is here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00783.php
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-11-07 23:44:48 | Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux 2.6.33+ |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-11-07 22:34:24 | Buildfarm client version 4.3 released |