On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 16:23, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > 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.
Thanks for chiming in. I'm relieved it's not me vs everyone else anymore. > 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. Agreed. David
