Hi, On 2019-01-15 14:05:25 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 1:37 AM Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Can you please help me understand what's fundamentally wrong with > > the approach and more importantly, can you please explain what would > > the the architecturally sound way to do this? The same also applies > > to the executor side where the current approach is deemed wrong, but > > very little is said on what's the correct way. > > [ Long and good explanation by Robert ]
> I want to point out that it is not as if nobody has reviewed this > patch previously. Here is Andres making basically the same point > about parse analysis that I'm making here -- FWIW, I didn't find his > reply until after I'd written the above: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180403021800.b5nsgiclzanobiup%40alap3.anarazel.de > > Here he is explaining these points some more: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180405200003.gar3j26gsk32gqpe%40alap3.anarazel.de > > And here's Peter Geoghegan not only explaining the same problem but > having a go at fixing it: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-Wz%3DZwNQvp11XjeHo-dBLHr9GDRi1vao8w1j7LQ8mOsUkzw%40mail.gmail.com > > Actually, I see that Peter Geoghegan not just the emails above but a > blizzard of other emails explaining the structural problems with the > patch, which I now see include not only the parse analysis concerns > but also the business of multiple RTEs which I mentioned above. + many. Pavan, I think the reason you're not getting much further feedback is that you and Simon have gotten a lot and only incorporated feedback only very grudgingly, if at all. You've not even attempted to sketch out a move of the main merge handling from parse-analysis to planner, as far as I can tell, despite this being one of the main criticisms for about a year. Given that not much besides rebasing has happened since v11, I don't find it surprising that people don't want to invest more energy in this patch. Greetings, Andres Freund
