(2014/06/13 1:37), Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
We have a couple votes for this patch and no one has spoken against it,
so I'll go ahead and push it into HEAD.
BTW, I forgot to mention that while working on this patch I was thinking
it's past time to separate out the subquery support in
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The attached draft patch fixes this by deleting unused output expressions
from unflattened subqueries, so that we get:
regression=# explain select f1 from (select * from t1 left join t2 on f1=f2
limit 1) ss;
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The attached draft patch fixes this by deleting unused output expressions
from unflattened subqueries, so that we get:
...
I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth the extra
I wrote:
We have a couple votes for this patch and no one has spoken against it,
so I'll go ahead and push it into HEAD.
BTW, I forgot to mention that while working on this patch I was thinking
it's past time to separate out the subquery support in allpaths.c into
its own file. With this
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth the extra planning cycles,
though. Given the small number of complaints to date, it might not
be worth doing this. Thoughts?
That's a difficult question for sure. Obviously it's
On 6/5/14, 9:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Rod Taylor rod.tay...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth the extra planning cycles,
though. Given the small number of complaints to date, it might not
be worth
A question in pgsql-general made me reflect about how the planner isn't
smart about unreferenced output columns of subqueries that it's not able
to flatten into the parent query. Here's an example:
regression=# create table t1 (f1 int);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# create table t2 (f2 int primary
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth the extra planning cycles,
though. Given the small number of complaints to date, it might not
be worth doing this. Thoughts?
Would this avoid execution of expensive functions in
Rod Taylor rod.tay...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth the extra planning cycles,
though. Given the small number of complaints to date, it might not
be worth doing this. Thoughts?
Would this
