Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:30:41 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-advocacy@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 12: Feature Highlights
Message-ID: <20190614133041.33qyqu3gsfaea67f@momjian.us>
References: <20190517153653.pmolnulev6imwsn3@momjian.us>
 <CAKJS1f_c8tngWJZjNcQY0KXHWVs4JZxyzoX_cGBEHbaWKUAC=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190518023017.nkucoc5xgoebtvfw@momjian.us>
 <CAKJS1f8R8riwBXw==7ijV=UZNuhP+3qXgDBKSiM+=_cTf4mXXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190518132031.zjyxgvys7unan53f@momjian.us>
 <CAKJS1f9TVMvGQdwxMemci34viPZuiLTFOJa4rc1Bfhm57WycFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190521145509.s6bme6pgww3glmku@momjian.us>
 <CAKJS1f9FL6oKd52PLddKsbjkX26JHp5nMRxVA-W9Uf_1a9TwgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190614032439.vrv7tvvyez5j2xog@momjian.us>
 <CAKJS1f-DGABDX3QHCGsi6UmDsxdmFkiKUYWQLs8pzeWLnOgnRw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKJS1f-DGABDX3QHCGsi6UmDsxdmFkiKUYWQLs8pzeWLnOgnRw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 03:57:45PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 15:24, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:33:10PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 02:55, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > > > This brings up a few points.  First, it seems the change affects
> > > > partitioned tables and UNION ALL, which means it probably needs to be
> > > > listed in two sections.   Second, is it only parallelism paths that are
> > > > added?  I am not sure if people care about a node being removed,
> > > > especially when the might not even know we do that step, but they do
> > > > care if there are new optimization possibilities.
> > >
> > > Like Amit, I think the optimizer section is fine.  Another thing that
> > > is affected is that you may no longer get a Materialize node in the
> > > plan.  Previously you might have gotten something like Merge Join ->
> > > Materialize -> Append -> Seq Scan, now you might just get Merge Join
> > > -> Seq Scan.  This is because Append / MergeAppend don't support mark
> > > and restore. Removing them would allow the materialize node to be
> > > skipped in cases where the single subpath of the Append does support
> > > mark and restore.
> >
> > How is this patch for the item?  I put it in the Optimizer section.
> 
> That looks fine. Thank you.

Done, thanks.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +