I've added this to the July commitfest. Gregory Stark wrote: > Here's a copy of the merge-append patch that I sent months ago merged up to > head. I haven't really added any additional functionality since then. > > Heikki suggested I separate the Append and MergeAppend nodes into two executor > nodes. I had that half done in my tree but looking it over it leads to a lot > of duplicated code and a strange effect that there's on Path node but two > Executor nodes which seems strange. I'm not sure which way to go here but at > least for now I'm leaving it this way since it's less code to write. If we > want it the other way to commit then I'll do it. > > The other pending question is the same I had back when I originally submitted > it. I don't really understand what's going on with eclasses and what > invariants we're aiming to maintain with them. I don't see a problem tossing > all the child relation attributes into the same eclass even though they're not > strictly speaking "equivalent". No join above the append path is going to see > the child attributes anyways. But that might be shortsighted as I'm not really > sure what the consequences are and what other uses we have envisioned for > eclasses in the future. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
