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 87va39rzvv.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs  (Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>)
Responses Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs  (Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> writes:

 Andreas> I believe I have fixed these except for the comment on the
 Andreas> conditions for when we inline.

 Andreas> Andrew Gierth: Why did you chose to not inline on FOR UPDATE
 Andreas> but inline volatile functions? I feel that this might be
 Andreas> inconsistent since in both cases the query in the CTE can
 Andreas> change behavior if the planner pushes a WHERE clause into the
 Andreas> subquery, but maybe I am missing something.

I chose not to inline FOR UPDATE because it was an obvious compatibility
break, potentially changing the set of locked rows, and it was an easy
condition to test.

I did not test for volatile functions simply because this was a very
early stage of the project (which wasn't my project, I was just
assisting someone else). I left the comment "this likely needs some
additional checks" there for a reason.

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY]
Next
From: Edmund Horner
Date:
Subject: Re: Joins on TID