Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hHD3d-0004Sq-SU for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 19:50:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hHD3c-0006dT-5e for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 19:50:52 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hHD3b-0006dL-PR for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 19:50:51 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hHD3Z-0006w3-FD for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 19:50:50 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x3IJoiPu023022; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 15:50:44 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Amit Langote cc: David Rowley , Yuzuko Hosoya , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Runtime pruning problem In-reply-to: <17368.1555608352@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <001001d4f44b$2a2cca50$7e865ef0$@lab.ntt.co.jp> <2018.1555473241@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2923.1555474214@sss.pgh.pa.us> <17368.1555608352@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Thu, 18 Apr 2019 13:25:52 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <23020.1555617044.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 15:50:44 -0400 Message-ID: <23021.1555617044@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk I wrote: > [ let's fix this by reverting ruleutils back to using Plans not PlanStates ] BTW, while I suspect the above wouldn't be a huge patch, it doesn't seem trivial either. Since the issue is (a) cosmetic and (b) not new (v11 behaves the same way), I don't think we should consider it to be an open item for v12. I suggest leaving this as a to-do for v13. regards, tom lane