On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark writes:
>> In the original poster's plan that isn't an issue. We could scan the
>> index, perform the joins and restriction clauses, and only check the
>> visibility on the resulting tuples which slip through them all. That
>> would b
Greg Stark writes:
> In the original poster's plan that isn't an issue. We could scan the
> index, perform the joins and restriction clauses, and only check the
> visibility on the resulting tuples which slip through them all. That
> would be possible even without crash-safe visibility bits.
Yeah
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> A word of warning, in my experience the hardest part for changes like
>> this isn't the executor changes (which in this case wouldn't be far
>> from easy) but the planner changes to detect
