Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Fetter
Subject Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
Date
Msg-id 20180725191447.GE17411@fetter.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs  (Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>)
Responses Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 04:18:42PM +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >>>>> "David" == David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> 
>  David> Please find attached a version rebased atop 167075be3ab1547e18
>  David> with what I believe are appropriate changes to regression test
>  David> output. The other changes to the regression tests output are
>  David> somewhat puzzling, as they change the actual results of queries.
> 
> Both of those changes are the result of volatile CTEs being inlined more
> than once (in one case, as part of an explicit test to ensure that CTEs
> are being materialized and not multiply evaluated).
> 
> If you look for the XXX comment in the patch, it should be easy to add a
> check that skips inlining if cterefcount > 1 and
> contains_volatile_functions is true.

Thanks for the broad hints!

Please find attached the next version, which passes 'make check'.

Best,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: JIT breaks PostGIS
Next
From: Christoph Berg
Date:
Subject: Re: JIT breaks PostGIS