Re: Properly pathify the union planner - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Properly pathify the union planner
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvocp7wjzjohck62FF4ZQ_=tVOGNRfOb5CTK6Zu7c4-irw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Properly pathify the union planner  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Properly pathify the union planner
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 at 22:47, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did wonder when first working on this patch if subquery_planner()
> should grow an extra parameter, or maybe consolidate some existing
> ones by passing some struct that provides the planner with a bit more
> context about the query.  A few of the existing parameters are likely
> candidates for being in such a struct. e.g. hasRecursion and
> tuple_fraction. A SetOperationStmt could go in there too.

The attached is roughly what I had in mind.  I've not taken the time
to see what comments need to be updated, so the attached aims only to
assist discussion.

David

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dean Rasheed
Date:
Subject: Re: Functions to return random numbers in a given range
Next
From: Michael Banck
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects