Re: Guide to PG's capabilities for inlining, predicate hoisting, flattening, etc?

From: Justin Pitts <justinpitts(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jay Levitt <jay(dot)levitt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Guide to PG's capabilities for inlining, predicate hoisting, flattening, etc?
Date: 2011-11-02 16:41:56
Message-ID: CAMYZu8UHu-zz3-2_C0vtdqwDiWMgsWQjuVPSvNYR5Sxuu-Me+g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> […] Perhaps we could let people say
> something like WITH x AS FENCE (...) when they want the fencing
> behavior, and otherwise assume they don't (but give it to them anyway
> if there's a data-modifying operation in there).
>

I would love to be able to test some of our CTE queries in such a scenario.

None of them do data modification. How hard would it be to patch my own
build to disable the fence unilaterally for testing purposes?

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2011-11-02 17:13:06 Re: Guide to PG's capabilities for inlining, predicate hoisting, flattening, etc?
Previous Message David Boreham 2011-11-02 15:20:45 Re: Intel 710 pgbench write latencies