Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw withpartition wise join enabled. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw withpartition wise join enabled.
Date
Msg-id CAFjFpRcwrESJBDkmm1kvtV234nkw=dr9nJ=RWJ4pmsVQqF4avg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partitionwise join enabled.  (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partitionwise join enabled.  (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>
>>
>> As I said, we do spend cycles in that function testing whether a node
>> is Aggref or not even when the query doesn't have aggregates or
>> grouping OR spend cycles in testing whether a node is a PlaceHolderVar
>> when the query doesn't produce any. So, I don't see any problem with
>> spending a few cycles testing whether a node is ConvertRowtypeExpr or
>> not when a ConvertRowtypeExpr is not in the query or command. That's
>> not a huge performance trouble. I would be happy to change my mind, if
>> you show me performance different with and without this patch in
>> planning. I haven't seen any.
>
>
> I have to admit that the case in [1] wouldn't affect the performance, but my
> concern is that there might be some cases where the test affects
> performance.

What are those cases? Can you please provide any numbers supporting your claim?

-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw
Next
From: Nico Williams
Date:
Subject: Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending)patents?