> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> "Etsuro Fujita" <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: > > Sorry for the delay. I've reviewed the patch. It was applied > > successfully, and it worked well for tests I did including the example > > you showed. I think it's worth the work, but I'm not sure you go > > about it in the right way. (I feel the patch decreases code > > readability more than it gives an advantage.) > > One thought here is that I don't particularly like adding a field like > "resorderbyonly" to TargetEntry in the first place. That makes this > optimization the business of the parser, which it should not be; and > furthermore makes it incumbent on the rewriter, as well as anything else > that manipulates parsetrees, to maintain the flag correctly while > rearranging queries. It would be better if this were strictly the > business of the planner. Okay. I would like to investigate a planner-based approach that would not require the resorderbyonly field. Thanks, Best regards, Etsuro Fujita -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
