| From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuro Yamada <tatsuro(dot)yamada(at)ntt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tatsuro Yamada <yamatattsu(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add enable_groupagg GUC parameter to control GroupAggregate usage |
| Date: | 2026-06-26 06:26:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAMbWs48cWQ=QkwH21zhfGH2MsAFYJpskjak99N4VX2yB69k-Eg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 6:12 PM Tatsuro Yamada <tatsuro(dot)yamada(at)ntt(dot)com> wrote:
> It sounds like there are several plan nodes that could be covered by this GUC
> (such as SetOp, sort-based Unique for DISTINCT, semijoin uniqueification,
> and Group nodes). Do you think we should cover all of them before the patch
> would be considered complete enough for commit?
Yeah, I think so. The v4 patch actually already did that. You can
find these changes in create_setop_path(), create_unique_path(), and
cost_group().
> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how best to proceed, and whether
> dividing the work into smaller pieces would make sense.
It seems that the scope of the regression test changes isn't too
large, so I think keeping them in one patch is fine.
- Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-06-26 06:45:14 | Re: DDL deparse |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2026-06-26 06:05:40 | Re: plpython: NULL pointer dereference on broken sequence objects |