Re: Removing unneeded self joins

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark.cfm@gmail.com>, Michał Kłeczek <michal@kleczek.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>

Date: 2024-05-06T15:17:08Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Remove GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE from enable_self_join_elimination
- 717d0e8dd945 18.0 landed
Put enable_self_join_elimination into postgresql.conf.sample
- c2d329260cd8 18.0 landed
Get rid of ojrelid local variable in remove_rel_from_query()
- e167191dc146 18.0 landed
Implement Self-Join Elimination
- fc069a3a6319 18.0 cited
Revert: Remove useless self-joins
- d1d286d83c0e 17.0 landed
Replace lateral references to removed rels in subqueries
- 466979ef031a 17.0 landed
Replace relids in lateral subquery parse tree during SJE
- 489072ab7a9e 17.0 landed
Forbid SJE with result relation
- 8c441c082797 17.0 landed
Fix misuse of RelOptInfo.unique_for_rels cache by SJE
- 30b4955a4668 17.0 landed
Replace the relid in some missing fields during SJE
- a7928a57b9f0 17.0 landed
Revert 56-bit relfilenode change and follow-up commits.
- a448e49bcbe4 16.0 cited
Stabilize timetz test across DST transitions.
- 4a071afbd056 14.0 cited
Speed up finding EquivalenceClasses for a given set of rels
- 3373c7155350 13.0 cited
Fix mark-and-restore-skipping test case to not be a self-join.
- 24d08f3c0a1f 12.0 landed

On Mon, May  6, 2024 at 10:44:33AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I want to go on record right now as disagreeing with the plan proposed
> in the commit message for the revert commit, namely, committing this
> again early in the v18 cycle. I don't think Tom would have proposed
> reverting this feature unless he believed that it had more serious
> problems than could be easily fixed in a short period of time. I think
> that concern is well-founded, given the number of fixes that were
> committed. It seems likely that the patch needs significant rework and
> stabilization before it gets committed again, and I think it shouldn't
> be committed again without explicit agreement from Tom or one of the
> other committers who have significant experience with the query
> planner. That is not to say that I don't approve generally of the idea
> of committing things earlier in the release cycle: I certainly do. It
> gives us more time to shake out problems with patches before we ship.
> But it only makes sense if we collectively believe that the patch is
> mostly correct, and only needs fine-tuning, and I think there are good
> reasons to believe that we shouldn't have that level of confidence in
> this case.

I think what Robert is saying is that it is an unacceptable plan to just
dump the code into PG 18 and clean it up in the following months --- it
needs more research before it is re-added to git.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.