>
> I don't have any numbers right now, so that is nothing but a concern. But as
> I said in a previous email, in the approach I proposed, we don't need to
> spend extra cycles where partitioning is not involved. I think that is a
> good thing in itself. No?
At the cost of having targetlist being type inconsistent. I don't have
any testcase either to show that that's a problem in practice. So,
it's a trade-off of a concern vs concern.
Apart from that, in your approach there are extra cycles spent in
traversing the targetlist to add ConvertRowtypeExpr, albeit only when
there is a whole-row expression in the targetlist, when creating
plans. That's not there in my patch.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
