On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@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. I 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. But 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
