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

From Andrew Gierth
Subject Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
Date
Msg-id 87bmavfjhy.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs  (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
Responses Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs  (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "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.

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster
Next
From: David Steele
Date:
Subject: Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster