| From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexandra Wang <alexandra(dot)wang(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "bruce(at)momjian(dot)us" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: plan shape work |
| Date: | 2025-10-09 02:24:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAMbWs4__ff1WGk7nRT+5a8nrXP93NJmQFyLe_2_jL0MPFYVRHw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 4:37 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I see that Richard's PoC last patch confused cfbot. Here's a new
> version of just the patch proposed for commit for CfBot testing.
Does it make sense to explicitly initialize glob->subplanNames in
standard_planner()? I understand this might seem pointless since
makeNode() zeroes all fields by default, but subplanNames is currently
the only field in PlannerGlobal that isn't explicitly initialized. I
previously committed a patch (2c0ed86d3) to ensure all PlannerGlobal
fields are explicitly initialized, and I'd prefer to maintain that
consistency.
I actually suggested the same in [1] (the last paragraph), but it
seems to have been overlooked.
[1] https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-ysLvZiWp=w5=+noCMdX9FHFrrc0Wuk-TcUz1RDmEbkQ@mail.gmail.com
- Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2025-10-09 02:28:56 | RE: [PROPOSAL] Termination of Background Workers for ALTER/DROP DATABASE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-10-09 02:13:28 | Re: Eager aggregation, take 3 |