On Jul 11, 2011, at 11:55 AM, "Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I find these responses to be a bit off point. > > The OP is basically looking for what Florian tried to implement. > This is perhaps a *bit* off point, but arguably not more than > pointing someone who is requesting planner hints in another > direction. And someone thought the issues were related here: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01792.php > > ;-)
Well, fair enough. I thought of the connection between this request and Florian's work, too. I would very much like to support what he proposed, but it doesn't appear viable without a heapam rewrite, or maybe a lock manager rewrite. However, I think that's a somewhat separate question from whether we need to forbid SFU on the outer side of a join. Tom's question seems to me to be right on target: what semantics do our competitors assign to this construct? And do they broadly agree with each other? >> Evidently our competition does not agree > > Neither on this nor on planner hints. ;-) Well, we are a pretty smart group of people. But I don't think we should completely ignore what other people are doing, on any topic. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
