Message-ID: <44CC0D5F.7080105@joeconway.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:37:35 -0700
From: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060501 Fedora/1.7.13-1.1.fc5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features?
References: <200607281947.k6SJlOI02533@momjian.us>
	<473.1154116455@sss.pgh.pa.us> <44CA76A9.8070101@joeconway.com>
	<44CB051D.6090609@joeconway.com> <21320.1154222840@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <21320.1154222840@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> 
>>>I'm afraid though that after 2 or so days heading down the last path you 
>>>suggested (namely making a new jointree leaf node) I was having trouble, 
>>>and at the same time came to the conclusion that adding a new RTE was 
>>>alot cleaner and made more sense to me. So I'm hoping you won't want to 
>>>send me back to the drawing board again. I believe I have cleaned up the 
>>>things you objected to:
> 
> 
> I was just objecting to having both a new RTE type and a new jointree
> node type --- you only need one or the other.  Opting for the new RTE
> type is fine with me, and it probably is a bit cleaner at the end of
> the day.

Great!

> I still dislike the way you're doing things in the executor though.
> I don't see the point of using the execScan.c machinery; most of the
> time that'll be useless overhead.  As I said before, I think the right
> direction here is to split Result into two single-purpose node types
> and make the non-filter version capable of taking a list of targetlists.

OK.

> As far as reducing memory use goes, it seems to me that there's no need
> for the individual "targetlists" to have ResTarget/TargetEntry
> decoration.  For the simple case where the expressions are just Const
> nodes, this could save something like a third of the space (there's also
> a List node per item, which we can't do much about).  I think we'd have
> to gin up a fake targetlist to attach to the Plan node, but there'd be
> only one.

OK, I'll take a look at that (actually I was just in that general 
vicinity anyway).

> Since the result-node split is my hot button, I'm willing to volunteer
> to make it happen.  Do you want to concentrate on the remaining
> parser-area issues and leave the executor part to me?
> 

Sure, sounds good to me.

Joe