Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API

Simon,

Perhaps you've changed your proposal wrt LOOKASIDES's and I've missed it
somewhere in the thread, but this is what I was referring to with my
concerns regarding per-relation definition of 'LOOKASIDES':

* Simon Riggs (simon@2ndQuadrant.com) wrote:
> Roughly, I'm thinking of this...
>
> CREATE LOOKASIDE ON foo
>    TO foo_mat_view;
>
> and also this...
>
> CREATE LOOKASIDE ON foo
>    TO foo_as_a_foreign_table   /* e.g. PGStrom */

where I took 'foo' to mean 'a relation'.

Your downthread comments on 'CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW' are in the same
vein, though there I agree that we need it per-relation as there are
other trade-offs to consider (storage costs of the matview, cost to
maintain the matview, etc, similar to indexes).

The PGStrom proposal, aiui, is to add a new join type which supports
using a GPU to answer a query where all the data is in regular PG
tables.  I'd like that to "just work" when a GPU is available (perhaps
modulo having to install some extension), for any join which is costed
to be cheaper/faster when done that way.
Thanks,
    Stephen