Re: RTE_NAMEDTUPLESTORE, enrtuples and comments
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>,
Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>
Date: 2017-06-13T16:04:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> But it needs to be changeable, unless you like the proposition that we >> can never replan a query inside a trigger on the basis of new information >> about how big the transition table is. Even if you're okay with that >> particular restriction, the NamedTupleStore stuff is supposed to be >> flexible enough to accommodate other use-cases, and some of them will >> surely not be okay with an immutable estimate for the store's size. > Hmm, true. But even if we extracted enrtuples from the > RangeTbleEntry, there wouldn't be any mechanism to actually trigger > such a replan, would there? You're just pointing out that there's a lot of unfinished work around this mechanism. I don't think anybody has claimed otherwise. regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Fix problems related to RangeTblEntry members enrname and enrtuples.
- f32d57fd7088 10.0 landed
-
Add infrastructure to support EphemeralNamedRelation references.
- 18ce3a4ab22d 10.0 cited