public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Andrei Lepikhov <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>
Cc: Lukas Fittl <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: pg_plan_advice
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 11:34:35 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CA+TgmoZ-Jh1T6QyWoCODMVQdhTUPYkaZjWztzP1En4=ZHoKPzw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoZUN8FT1Ah=m6Uis5bHa4FUa+_hMDWtcABG17toEfpiUg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoYh2-kM+tscOz=jVYq9Tf4SRPVqzPojs3KLZcW6E9m1BQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoaK=4w7-qknUo3QhUJ53pXZq=c=KgZmRyD+k7ytqfmgSg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAP53Pkz3DSFaaowYvbO5LULf3NhydD_UhHkighfWf6_pwxiqUw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoZ45n5jaNKKgbbj4-kYV8WsPvUn=Z8HnoZ7tUb_p9WKXg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoYuWmN-00Ec5pY7zAcpSFQUQLbgAdVWGR9kOR-HM-fHrA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAP53Pkzn_wZ-R-cPdD9XSQ9+myPUUsPMMqVBPNG3XWXhgfm1-Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+Tgmobxbju8PrY_NULtPr7b7UShp4+Jqibm2Bou8TVS69gObQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+Tgmoaz! [email protected]>
<CA+TgmoadkuOMJjvYe2h6aznHFeePprGEQ8CgUpRK=47sB6DMAg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmoY+g1u-fN=3igXG-8u0Ho3V4u-ooWXCj-FQ9DA=uGek9g@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
On 4/4/26 05:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> The terms that I'm thinking in are "how much redesign will we accept
> post-feature-freeze, in either pg_plan_advice or test_plan_advice,
> before choosing to revert those modules entirely for v19?". I think
> that running those tests serially is a sufficiently low-risk option
> that it'd be okay to put it in post-freeze, even very long after.
> I'm not sure that any of the other group-1 or group-2 options you
> suggested would be okay post-freeze. (Of course, ultimately that'd
> be the RMT's decision not mine.)
>
> I believe that we probably will need to do something in this
> area before v19 release. If we're willing to commit to it being
> "run the tests serially", then sure we can wait awhile before
> actually doing that. Maybe we'll even think of a better idea
> ... but what we can do about this post-freeze seems pretty
> constrained to me.
As you work on the code, please keep the pg_plan_advice issue [1] in
mind. I came across it while designing the optimisation in [2]. Even if
[2] is not added to the Postgres core, this still looks like a valid
query plan and may be proposed by an extension. So, the hinting module
should avoid conflicts with other extensions, just as pg_hint_plan does.
[1] pg_plan_advice fails when NestLoop outer side is Sort over FunctionScan
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected]
[2] Try a presorted outer path when referenced by an ORDER BY prefix
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/19a9265c-c441-4a43-bc0d-dac533438da0%40gmail.com
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov,
pgEdge
view thread (184+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: pg_plan_advice
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox