Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Daniel Browning <db(at)kavod(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?
Date: 2012-10-01 13:05:18
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Daniel Browning <db(at)kavod(dot)com> wrote:
> Another good reason to reject it might be because the only way to disable
> the CTE fence is to disable it by default. If that were the case, then I
> would imagine that it would break backwards compatibility, especially in the
> case of writable CTEs that currently depend on the fence for their current
> functionality.

Yeah: I constantly rely on CTE fencing and it's a frequently suggested
performance trick on the lists. LATERAL is coming out soon and this
will remove one of the largest reasons to fence but there are of
course others. Also, a GUC setting is almost certainly the wrong

I'm wondering if there are any technical/standards constraints that
are behind the fencing behavior. If there aren't any, maybe an opt-in
keyword might do the trick -- WITH UNBOXED foo AS (..)?


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2012-10-01 13:09:59 Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2012-10-01 13:02:12 Re: 64-bit API for large object