Re: Pushdown target list below gather node (WAS Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Pushdown target list below gather node (WAS Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification)
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1JxjLLv_Dau2ZzDh6b9oPGKrp-L0qu8fx+DzLmh0T2Bww@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Pushdown target list below gather node (WAS Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > While reading above code changes, it looks like it is assuming that subpath
> > and subplan will always be same (as it is verifying projection capability
> > of subpath and attaching the tlist to subplan), but I think it is possible
> > that subpath and subplan correspond to different nodes when gating Result
> > node is added on to top of scan plan by create_scan_plan().
>
> A little more thought will show you that that's not actually relevant,
> because the tlist computation would have happened (or not) below the
> gating Result.  If gating Results had an impact on
> apply_projection_to_path's decisions we'd have had to do something about
> that before this.
>

I understand that gating Results won't impact it, but it was just not apparent from looking at the code I had referred.  If you think it is quite obvious thing, then we can leave the comment as it is.


With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] pgbench -C -M prepared gives an error
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check