On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > So no more planner-affecting GUCs, please, particularly if we expect
> > regular users to use them.
>
> +1
>
> I still see users wanting to use the enable_foo settings in production.
>
> Having had years of telling users that CTEs are an optimization fence it
> doesn't seem at all nice for us to turn around and change our mind about
> that. I have relied on it in the past and I'm sure I'm very far from
> alone in that.
You are certainly not alone, but I believe that in this you're missing
the vast majority (we hope) of PostgreSQL users. These are the users
who have yet to adopt PostgreSQL, and have the quite reasonable
expectation that ordinary-looking grammar *isn't* an optimization
fence.
> Maybe we could allow a "decorator" that would tell the planner the CTE
> could be inlined?
>
> WITH INLINE mycte AS ( ...)
+1 for a decorator, -1 for this one.
We already have an explicit optimization fence with OFFSET 0, and I
think making optimization fences explicit is how we should continue.
I'd be more in favor of something along the lines of
WITH FENCED /* Somewhat fuzzy. What fence? */
or
WITH AT_MOST_ONCE /* Clearer, but not super precise */
or
WITH UNIQUE_ATOMIC /* More descriptive, but not super clear without the
docs in hand */
or something along that line.
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
