On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2017-05-01 1:21 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>: >> >> On 2017-04-30 07:19:21 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> > why we cannot to introduce GUC option - enable_cteoptfence ? >> >> Doesn't really solve the issue, and we've generally shied away from GUCs >> that influence behaviour after a few bad experiences. What if you want >> one CTE inlined, but another one not? > > > It change behave in same sense like enable_nestloop, enable_hashjoin, ... > with same limits.
And then we recall plan hints :) > > Regards > > Pavel > >> >> >> - Andres > > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
