On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. I think the code in mark_dummy_rel is newer and better-thought-out
>> than what's in create_unique_path. It probably makes sense to change over.
>
> I did a bit of archaeology here.
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. I think the code in mark_dummy_rel is newer and better-thought-out
> than what's in create_unique_path. It probably makes sense to change over.
I did a bit of archaeology here. create_unique_path() first appears
in commit bdfbfde1b168b33
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Ashutosh Bapat writes:
> Do you have test case, which can reproduce the issue you
> explained above?
>>>
No. I
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ashutosh Bapat writes:
Do you have test case, which can reproduce the issue you
explained above?
>>
>>> No. It would require some surgery in standard_planner() to measure the
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat writes:
>>> Do you have test case, which can reproduce the issue you
>>> explained above?
>
>> No. It would require some surgery in standard_planner() to measure the
>> memory consumed in the planner context OR build the code with
