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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
Date
Msg-id 744.1548602515@sss.pgh.pa.us
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  (Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> I'm not sure we should nail down the rule that the absence of NOT
> MATERIALIZED will mean a multiply-referenced CTE is evaluated once. One
> would hope that in the future the planner might be taught to inline or
> not in that case depending on cost. I think it makes more sense to say
> that we never inline if MATERIALIZED is specified, that we always inline
> if NOT MATERIALIZED is specified, and that if neither is specified the
> planner will choose (but perhaps note that currently it always chooses
> only based on refcount).

I have no objection to documenting it like that; I just don't want us
to go off into the weeds trying to actually implement something smarter
for v12.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Allowing extensions to supply operator-/function-specific info
Next
From: Dmitry Dolgov
Date:
Subject: Re: Index Skip Scan