Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification
Date
Msg-id 21803.1457366962@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> The currently-committed code generates paths where nested loops and
> hash joins get pushed beneath the Gather node, but does not generate
> paths where merge joins have been pushed beneath the Gather node.  And
> the reason I didn't try to generate those paths is because I believe
> they will almost always suck.

That's a perfectly reasonable engineering judgment (and especially so
for a first release).  What I'd really like to see documented is how
that conclusion is related, or not, to the rules about how path nodes
should be decorated with parallel_safe, parallel_degree, etc annotations.
The existing documentation is barely adequate to explain what those fields
mean for primitive scan nodes; it's impossible for anyone but you to
know what they are supposed to mean for joins and higher-level nodes.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: Badly designed error reporting code in controldata_utils.c
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification