Re: Allowing join removals for more join types - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Noah Misch
Subject Re: Allowing join removals for more join types
Date
Msg-id 20140605233623.GA421700@tornado.leadboat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Allowing join removals for more join types  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Allowing join removals for more join types  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 02:12:33AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-06-04 20:04:07 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 10:14:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > It's possible that we could apply the optimization only to queries that
> > > have been issued directly by a client, but that seems rather ugly and
> > > surprise-filled.
> > 
> > ... such as this idea.  It's a good start to a fairly-hard problem.  FKs are
> > also always valid when afterTriggers->query_depth == -1, such as when all
> > ongoing queries qualified for EXEC_FLAG_SKIP_TRIGGERS.  What else?  We could
> > teach trigger.c to efficiently report whether a given table has a queued RI
> > trigger.  Having done that, when plancache.c is building a custom plan, the
> > planner could ignore FKs with pending RI checks and use the rest.  At that
> > point, the surprises will be reasonably-isolated.
> 
> A bit more crazy, but how about trying trying to plan joins with a added
> one-time qual that checks the size of the deferred trigger queue? Then
> we wouldn't even need special case plans.

That, too, sounds promising to investigate.

-- 
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB                                 http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: slotname vs slot_name
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Allowing join removals for more join types