| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Properly pathify the union planner |
| Date: | 2024-03-27 10:34:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvocp7wjzjohck62FF4ZQ_=tVOGNRfOb5CTK6Zu7c4-irw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 at 22:47, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I did wonder when first working on this patch if subquery_planner()
> should grow an extra parameter, or maybe consolidate some existing
> ones by passing some struct that provides the planner with a bit more
> context about the query. A few of the existing parameters are likely
> candidates for being in such a struct. e.g. hasRecursion and
> tuple_fraction. A SetOperationStmt could go in there too.
The attached is roughly what I had in mind. I've not taken the time
to see what comments need to be updated, so the attached aims only to
assist discussion.
David
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| add_PlannerContext.patch | text/plain | 12.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Banck | 2024-03-27 10:54:54 | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2024-03-27 10:32:43 | Re: Functions to return random numbers in a given range |