David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes:
> I don't object to making the change. I just object to making it only
> to put it back again later when someone else speaks up that they'd
> prefer to keep nodes modular and not overload them in obscure ways.
> So other input is welcome. Is it too weird to overload SubPlan and
> Nested Loop this way? Or okay to do that if it squeezes out a dozen
> or so nanoseconds per tuple?
If you need somebody to blame it on, blame it on me - but I agree
that that is an absolutely horrid abuse of NestLoop. We might as
well reduce explain.c to a one-liner that prints "Here Be Dragons",
because no one will understand what this display is telling them.
I'm also quite skeptical that adding overhead to nodeNestloop.c
to support this would actually be a net win once you account for
what happens in plans where the caching is of no value.
regards, tom lane
