| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How to share the result data of separated plan |
| Date: | 2010-11-07 18:08:18 |
| Message-ID: | 17509.1289153298@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 2010-11-07 6:23 PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Um ... why? I thought the whole point of breaking out ModifyTable
>> as a separate node type was so that a query involving writeable CTEs
>> would still be just one plan tree.
> We tried that for 9.0 and it didn't work. Almost all work for 9.1 has
> been spent on creating an infrastructure for running the executor
> separately for every WITH list element when wCTEs are present.
I guess I shoulda been paying closer attention :-(. That really, really
seems like fundamentally the wrong direction. What was it that was
unfixable about the other way? If it is unfixable, should we revert
ModifyTable?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-11-07 18:35:14 | Re: How to share the result data of separated plan |
| Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2010-11-07 17:39:08 | Re: Patch to add a primary key using an existing index |