Re: allowing extensions to control planner behavior - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: allowing extensions to control planner behavior
Date
Msg-id 56ebc7c4032e689d39f89dd169665d28edec33da.camel@j-davis.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: allowing extensions to control planner behavior  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: allowing extensions to control planner behavior
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2024-08-30 at 07:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> This is a fair point. I dislike the fact that add_path() is a thicket
> of if-statements that's actually quite hard to understand and easy to
> screw up when you're making modifications. But I feel like it would
> be
> difficult to generalize the infrastructure without making it
> substantially slower, which would probably cause too much of an
> increase in planning time to be acceptable. So my guess is that this
> is a dead end, unless there's a clever idea that I'm not seeing.

As far as performance goes, I'm only looking at branch in add_path()
that calls compare_pathkeys(). Do you have some example queries which
would be a worst case for that path?

In general if you can post some details about how you are measuring,
that would be helpful.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andreas Karlsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Make printtup a bit faster
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel