From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reduce "Var IS [NOT] NULL" quals during constant folding |
Date: | 2025-08-20 14:10:58 |
Message-ID: | aKXXcjaAyL6JaoQz@nathan |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:29:03AM +0900, Richard Guo wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 2:38 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> There is still an open item for this one, but it's not clear whether we are
>> planning to do anything about this for v18, especially since nobody has
>> shown measurable performance impact. Does anyone want to argue for
>> addressing this for v18, or shall we close the open item as "Won't Fix"?
>
> I don't think we're likely to do anything about this for v18.
> Actually, I still doubt that the extra table_open call brings any
> measurable performance impact, especially since the lock is already
> held and the relation is likely already present in the relcache.
>
> Also, I still don't think moving the expansion of virtual generated
> columns to the rewriter (as Tom proposed) is a better idea. It turned
> out to have several problems that need to be fixed with the help of
> PHVs, which is why we moved the expansion into the planner.
Okay. I have marked the v18 open item as "Won't Fix".
--
nathan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Antonin Houska | 2025-08-20 14:22:41 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
Previous Message | vignesh C | 2025-08-20 13:46:55 | pg_get_sequence_data Shows Non-NULL last_value for Freshly Created Sequence |