Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Tom> * I have no faith in the idea that we can skip doing a copyObject
> Tom> on the inlined subquery, except maybe in the case where we know
> Tom> there's exactly one reference.
> The code doesn't do a copyObject on the query if there are no level
> changes because everywhere else just does another copyObject on it as
> the first processing step (cf. set_subquery_pathlist and the various
> functions called from pull_up_subqueries).
Perhaps it's safe today, but is that likely to remain true? We've had
enough pain in the past from multiply-linked parse subtrees that I am
not eager to introduce another case, especially not here where there's
absolutely no evidence that it'd provide a meaningful performance
improvement.
> Tom> * Speaking of the comments, I'm not convinced that view rewrite is
> Tom> a good comparison point; I think this is more like subquery
> Tom> pullup.
> It's not really like subquery pullup because we actually do go on to do
> subquery pullup _after_ inlining CTEs.
Subquery pullup can happen across multiple levels, too.
regards, tom lane
