Re: plan shape work

On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 12:00 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 11:12 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > I think what would make a ton more sense is to add
> > an enum field to Result that explicitly identifies why it's there.
> > We've got at least "apply one-time filter to subplan", "apply per-row
> > gating filter to subplan", "represent a relation proven empty", and
> > "place-hold for a MinMaxAgg InitPlan".
>
> Thanks, I'll look into this.

Just a random thought, but another idea that crossed my mind here at
one point was to actually split the Result node up into Result nodes
with subplans and Result nodes without subplans. We could call the
version with a subplan "Project" and the version without a subplan
"Result", for example. This seems a little silly because both variants
would need to be able to handle resconstantqual, or alternatively we'd
have to be OK with getting "Project" on top of "Result" in some cases
where a single "Result" node currently does both jobs. On the other
hand, only Project needs a subplan, and only Result needs relids.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com