DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=SMDOWjOS4sMfWJwJw5bFVjyaxsmURJw35KylfNE3PucmUJGISuYTrX32DTnYexecL8
	tk01E/DbgpEkXbL6yh4MaB/I+oQ4/b38dl/jGjJ9HjO6iTi+jptN7zxJgii7jpySgzQJ
	qg48tD0YEvnzJBf+9k7o6/FP2juUpgoKJDttA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <13795.1269876446@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <1269851630.3684.3636.camel@ebony>
	<603c8f071003290637q14d431f7j90afabd6fd2ec952@mail.gmail.com>
	<12679.1269873374@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<603c8f071003290820h3553d223le3b5228f789608f9@mail.gmail.com>
	<13795.1269876446@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:32:04 -0400
Message-ID: <603c8f071003290832u23130f2x84ffa459e312269c@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: enable_joinremoval
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> And for the record, I believe I find it rather amusing that you're
>> asking me if I "have the faintest idea how many there would be".
>
> Actually that was directed more at Simon.
>
>> I venture to say that after yourself I might be the person who knows
>> this code best. =A0I know how many there will be, if I get my way, and
>> that number is two.
>
> If you're speaking of adding a switch for the materialize-insertion
> behavior, I didn't object to that; I agree that turning that off might
> be an interesting thing to do. =A0But I remain of the opinion that a
> switch to disable join removal is just useless code and user-visible
> complexity.

OK, I'll write a patch for that; and a consensus emerges that we
should also have enable_joinremoval, then I will add that as well.  I
think the only argument for NOT having enable_joinremoval is that you
can always modify the query to say SELECT * rather than some more
specific SELECT list, but I think when there are several levels of
views involved it may not be so simple - you'll have to define
temporary versions of all the intermediate views, which is possibly
somewhat painful and certainly error-prone.

...Robert