On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 10:57 PM Andrei Lepikhov <lepi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I like the general idea of this work. But I wonder, why is a new hash > table designed to store only the notnullattnums field? From the > discussion, it is not apparent why not to cache all (or most of) the > data needed for get_relation_info. In cases where multiple subqueries > reference the same table, it could save some cycles and memory.
I think this idea was already thoroughly discussed earlier in this thread when Robert proposed moving get_relation_info() to an earlier stage. One reason against it is that not every RTE_RELATION relation will be actively part of the query. Collecting the whole bundle of catalog information for such relations is wasteful and can negatively impact performance. Thanks Richard
