Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.
Date: 2018-07-09 11:06:02
Message-ID: CAFjFpRcwrESJBDkmm1kvtV234nkw=dr9nJ=RWJ4pmsVQqF4avg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>
>>
>> As I said, we do spend cycles in that function testing whether a node
>> is Aggref or not even when the query doesn't have aggregates or
>> grouping OR spend cycles in testing whether a node is a PlaceHolderVar
>> when the query doesn't produce any. So, I don't see any problem with
>> spending a few cycles testing whether a node is ConvertRowtypeExpr or
>> not when a ConvertRowtypeExpr is not in the query or command. That's
>> not a huge performance trouble. I would be happy to change my mind, if
>> you show me performance different with and without this patch in
>> planning. I haven't seen any.
>
>
> I have to admit that the case in [1] wouldn't affect the performance, but my
> concern is that there might be some cases where the test affects
> performance.

What are those cases? Can you please provide any numbers supporting your claim?

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nico Williams 2018-07-09 11:09:10 Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2018-07-09 11:05:25 Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw