> > 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
