| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plan shape work |
| Date: | 2025-08-26 20:16:34 |
| Message-ID: | aK4WIireNDeIACbt@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 10:58:33AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> During planning, there is one range table per subquery; at the end if
> planning, those separate range tables are flattened into a single
> range table. Prior to this change, it was impractical for code
> examining the final plan to understand which parts of the flattened
> range table came from which subquery's range table.
>
> If the only consumer of the final plan is the executor, that is
> completely fine. However, if some code wants to examine the final
> plan, or what happens when we execute it, and extract information from
> it that be used in future planning cycles, it's inconvenient.
I am very interested in how plans can be used for future planning.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-08-26 20:21:36 | Re: Buffer locking is special (hints, checksums, AIO writes) |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-08-26 20:14:39 | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends |