Re: upper planner path-ification

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

 >> If there's interest, we could do that specific task as part of
 >> adding hashagg support for grouping sets (which would otherwise make
 >> it even longer), or as preparatory work for that.

 Tom> I think that refactoring without changing anything about the way
 Tom> it works will be painful and probably ultimately a dead end.  As
 Tom> an example, the current_pathkeys local variable is state that's
 Tom> needed throughout that process, so you'd need some messy notation
 Tom> to pass it around (unless you stuck it into PlannerRoot, which
 Tom> would be ugly too).  But that would go away in a path-ified
 Tom> universe, because each Path would be marked as to its output sort
 Tom> order.  More, a lot of the code that you'd be relocating is code
 Tom> that we should be trying to get rid of altogether, not just
 Tom> relocate (to wit all the stuff that does cost-based comparisons of
 Tom> alternatives).

 Tom> So I'm all for refactoring, but I think it will happen as a natural
 Tom> byproduct of path-ification, and otherwise would be rather forced.

Hrm, ok. So for the near future, we should leave it more or less as-is?
We don't have a timescale yet, but it's our intention to submit a
hashagg support patch for grouping sets as soon as time permits.

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)