| From: | Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ilya Shkuratov <motr(dot)ilya(at)ya(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CTE inlining |
| Date: | 2017-05-02 13:06:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAF4Au4x1WfsuwK2au9UACemar2ZkkCyp8TfA0mTXE3MRgvcaMA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> 2017-05-01 1:21 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>:
>>
>> On 2017-04-30 07:19:21 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> > why we cannot to introduce GUC option - enable_cteoptfence ?
>>
>> Doesn't really solve the issue, and we've generally shied away from GUCs
>> that influence behaviour after a few bad experiences. What if you want
>> one CTE inlined, but another one not?
>
>
> It change behave in same sense like enable_nestloop, enable_hashjoin, ...
> with same limits.
And then we recall plan hints :)
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>>
>>
>> - Andres
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-02 13:10:52 | Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-02 12:47:10 | Re: UPDATE of partition key |