On 2/7/2025 11:14, Richard Guo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 4:32 PM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I must say that I appreciate Tom's idea and see significant benefits in
>> making the parse tree a read-only structure. In complex queries, it can
>> be frustrating to make copies of the parse tree, leading to complaints
>> from users about insufficient memory allocation. This is why, in our
>> enterprise fork, we support a specific option to avoid copying the parse
>> tree multiple times.
>
> I don't see how the changes in this patchset violate Tom's proposal
> regarding keeping the parse tree read-only. The only potential issue
> I can see is that we may clear the rte->inh flag in some cases -- but
> that behavior has existed for a long time, not starting from this
> patchset.
I think the 1e4351a solution was a little too fast and it changes the
parse tree inside the planner. To achieve a read-only parse tree, we
will need to redesign it.
>> Therefore, it would be better to find a way to refactor the
>> `preprocess_relation_rtes` function to gather table statistics lazily
>> into the hash table when they are needed. For example, we could do this
>> at the moment of creating the `RelOptInfo` or before a subquery pull-up,
>> without modifying the RTE at all.
> All the catalog information collected in preprocess_relation_rtes() is
> needed very early in the planner. I don't see how we could move that
> logic to a later stage, such as at the moment of creating RelOptInfos
> as you mentioned.
I apologise for the confusion in my previous message. I am not
suggesting that we postpone this. Instead, I would like an explanation
of why you believe that accessing the table statistics earlier could
negatively impact planner performance. As I mentioned before, I have
only envisioned rare instances where join eliminations may reduce the
number of relations and clause evaluations resulting in a constant.
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov
