Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chris Rogers <teukros(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?
Date: 2015-05-01 22:32:44
Message-ID: CAM3SWZSiTAFAASOdPc02F+vZNtH=2CFKMiG53JpZUS-a9yxr6A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Assuming that that sketch is accurate, it would take more code to provide
> a new user-visible knob to enable/disable the behavior than it would to
> implement the optimization, which makes me pretty much -1 on providing
> such a knob. We should either do it or not. If we do, people who want
> optimization fences should use the traditional "OFFSET 0" hack.

+1

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2015-05-01 22:55:48 Re: Reducing tuple overhead
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-05-01 22:30:06 Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?