On 05/04/2017 07:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer <craig.rin...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> We're carefully maintaining this bizarre cognitive dissonance where we >> justify the need for using this as a planner hint at the same time as >> denying that we have a hint. That makes it hard to make progress here. >> I think there's fear that we're setting some kind of precedent by >> admitting what we already have. > > I think you're overstating the case. It's clear that there's a > significant subset of CTE functionality where there has to be an > optimization fence. The initial implementation basically took the > easy way out by deeming *all* CTEs to be optimization fences. Maybe > we shouldn't have documented that behavior, but we did. Now we're > arguing about how much of a compatibility break it'd be to change that > planner behavior. I don't see any particular cognitive dissonance here, > just disagreements about the extent to which backwards compatibility is > more important than better query optimization.
Exactly. One thought, is that we treat a CTE in a similar way to foreign tables, with the same set of push downs. Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
