Re: Teaching planner to short-circuit empty UNION/EXCEPT/INTERSECT inputs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Teaching planner to short-circuit empty UNION/EXCEPT/INTERSECT inputs
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvoKNCo+7SJCggvx2Ca+ribq2W+S29naPqrMxbR5wPWZBQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Teaching planner to short-circuit empty UNION/EXCEPT/INTERSECT inputs  (Mingli Zhang <zmlpostgres@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 at 02:55, Mingli Zhang <zmlpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems that the optimization for `UNION ALL` is already implemented in the patch: it removes empty sub-paths and
preservesthe remaining ones.
 
> Should we add a test case to formally validate this behavior like Union cases?

If I were to do that, I'd have to come up with something that's
flatten_simple_union_all() proof. Maybe something like varying types
in the targetlist. I think it's probably not really worthwhile since
it's not testing any new code that is not already being tested by the
tests that I did add.

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: disallow big-endian on aarch64
Next
From: Sami Imseih
Date:
Subject: Re: Add stats_reset to pg_stat_all_tables|indexes and related views