Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Thinking about it again, it seems to me that a much narrower patch
>> could solve the specific forms of the problem that the PostGIS folk
>> are seeing. Instead of trying to have a general-purpose method of
>> preventing repeat de-toasting, we could just prevent it for inner
>> indexscans by having ExecIndexEvalRuntimeKeys() detoast anything it's
>> passing to the index AM.
> With this patch, are there still situations where we should be concerned
> about repeated de-toasting, or does this solve the biggest part of the
> problem?
Well, it solves the case people have actually complained about (twice
now). I originally attempted to solve a larger set of cases, but it's
not clear there's enough value in that.
> If so, is it possible that two similar plans for the same query might
> perform differently due to repeated de-toasting?
Hard to answer that one. What's "similar"?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
