Re: Subplan result caching

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Subplan result caching
Date: 2020-05-20 11:47:05
Message-ID: CAApHDvrTgUP4g4j=n2FfUBK_KwZ2azxSFrVa28gzs7vteEa+pw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 00:37, Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I was feeling that we may have to maintain some extra status if we use hash
> table rather than tuple store, but that might be not a major concern. I can
> wait and see your patch.

I've posted the patch and lots of details about it in
https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrPcQyQdWERGYWx8J+2DLUNgXu+fOSbQ1UscxrunyXyrQ@mail.gmail.com

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Gilman 2020-05-20 12:55:23 Re: Warn when parallel restoring a custom dump without data offsets
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2020-05-20 11:46:18 SEARCH and CYCLE clauses