On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:38 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> The more I look at approach taken in the executor, the less I like it.
> I think the fundamental structural problem is that you've chosen to
> represent the ON CONFLICT UPDATE part as fully separate plan tree node;
> planned nearly like a nor
On 2015-04-27 23:52:58 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-04-27 16:28:49 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2015-04-26 18:02:06 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > * So far, there has been a lack of scrutiny about what the patch does
> > > in the rewriter (in particular, to support the EXCLUDED.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> So, I'm looking. And I've a few questions:
> * Why do we need to spread knowledge about speculative inserts that wide?
> It's now in 1) Query, 2) ParseState 3) ModifyTable 4) InsertStmt. That
> seems a bit wide - and as far as I see not r
On 2015-04-27 16:28:49 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-04-26 18:02:06 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > * So far, there has been a lack of scrutiny about what the patch does
> > in the rewriter (in particular, to support the EXCLUDED.* pseudo-alias
> > expression) and optimizer (the whole con
On 2015-04-26 18:02:06 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> * So far, there has been a lack of scrutiny about what the patch does
> in the rewriter (in particular, to support the EXCLUDED.* pseudo-alias
> expression) and optimizer (the whole concept of an "auxiliary"
> query/plan that share a target RTE
