| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: numbering plan nodes |
| Date: | 2015-09-17 21:19:10 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+j+5cCpZk68QLSUJUemcuj1WPv12RmmFgBca-aCadW22Kw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17 September 2015 at 13:14, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> My main concern with this design is how future-proof it is.
>
Passing array offsets sounds brittle to me.
It would screw up any attempts to post-process the plans. Later
enhancements seem certain to break that scheme.
It also assumes that all actors have access to a single memory structure
that describes everything.
Hopefully we are working on a parallel query system that will work
intranode as well as across nodes, so access to memory should not be
assumed.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-09-17 23:09:04 | Re: cache type info in json_agg and friends |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-09-17 20:43:52 | Re: some pg_rewind usability issues |