Re: CTE inlining

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CTE inlining
Date: 2017-05-01 15:04:47
Message-ID: d2a3c0b7-568a-b729-cb82-19132b9f54ea@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 05/01/2017 10:17 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> So no more planner-affecting GUCs, please, particularly if we expect
>>> regular users to use them.
>> +1
>>
>> I still see users wanting to use the enable_foo settings in production.
>>
>> Having had years of telling users that CTEs are an optimization fence it
>> doesn't seem at all nice for us to turn around and change our mind about
>> that. I have relied on it in the past and I'm sure I'm very far from
>> alone in that.
> You are certainly not alone, but I believe that in this you're missing
> the vast majority (we hope) of PostgreSQL users. These are the users
> who have yet to adopt PostgreSQL, and have the quite reasonable
> expectation that ordinary-looking grammar *isn't* an optimization
> fence.
>

I am not in favor of seriously inconveniencing a significant number of
our existing users for the sake of a bunch of people who don't now and
might never in the future use Postgres. I think the bar for silent
behaviour changes needs to be a bit higher than this one is.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-05-01 15:31:35 Re: PQhost may return socket dir for network connection
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-05-01 15:01:26 Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)