Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'm afraid though that after 2 or so days heading down the last path you >> suggested (namely making a new jointree leaf node) I was having trouble, >> and at the same time came to the conclusion that adding a new RTE was >> alot cleaner and made more sense to me. So I'm hoping you won't want to >> send me back to the drawing board again. I believe I have cleaned up the >> things you objected to:
I was just objecting to having both a new RTE type and a new jointree node type --- you only need one or the other. Opting for the new RTE type is fine with me, and it probably is a bit cleaner at the end of the day. I still dislike the way you're doing things in the executor though. I don't see the point of using the execScan.c machinery; most of the time that'll be useless overhead. As I said before, I think the right direction here is to split Result into two single-purpose node types and make the non-filter version capable of taking a list of targetlists. As far as reducing memory use goes, it seems to me that there's no need for the individual "targetlists" to have ResTarget/TargetEntry decoration. For the simple case where the expressions are just Const nodes, this could save something like a third of the space (there's also a List node per item, which we can't do much about). I think we'd have to gin up a fake targetlist to attach to the Plan node, but there'd be only one. Since the result-node split is my hot button, I'm willing to volunteer to make it happen. Do you want to concentrate on the remaining parser-area issues and leave the executor part to me? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster