On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 4:02 AM, David Rowley
<david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 19 February 2018 at 18:01, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 19 February 2018 at 15:11, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> and perhaps we should do s/isproxy/is_proxy/ which seems like the usual
>>> naming for boolean variables.
>>
>> You're right. I'll change that and post an updated patch. I'll also
>> reprocess your email again and try to improve some comments to make
>> the intent of the code more clear.
>
> I've made a few changes to the patch. "isproxy" is now "is_proxy".
> I've made the comments a bit more verbose at the top of the definition
> of struct AppendPath. Also shuffled some comments around in allpaths.c
>
> I've attached both a delta patch with just these changes, and also a
> completely new patch based on a recent master.
While I was working on
http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoakT5gmahbPWGqrR2nAdFOMAOnOXYoWHRdVfGWs34t6_A@mail.gmail.com
I noticed that a projection path is very close to being usable as a
proxy path, because we've already got code to strip out unnecessary
proxy paths at plan generation time. I noticed that there were a few
problems with that which I wrote patches to fix (see 0001, 0002
attached to that email) but they seem to be only minor issues.
What do you think about the idea of using a projection path as a proxy
path instead of inventing a new method? It seems simple enough to do:
new_path = (Path *) create_projection_path(root, new_rel, old_path,
old_path->pathtarget);
...when we need a proxy path.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
