Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRAFWxQTQJJ5Fr3F85oFWATTyHt0BoU+0-pXsO6u0nUviA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining
Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining
List pgsql-hackers


2017-05-01 1:21 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>:
On 2017-04-30 07:19:21 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> why we cannot to introduce GUC option - enable_cteoptfence ?

Doesn't really solve the issue, and we've generally shied away from GUCs
that influence behaviour after a few bad experiences.  What if you want
one CTE inlined, but another one not?

It change behave in same sense like enable_nestloop, enable_hashjoin, ... with same limits.

Regards

Pavel
 

- Andres

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken