> On Feb 3, 2019, at 3:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>> I've posted some preliminary design ideas at
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/15193.1548028093@sss.pgh.pa.us
>> and
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/15289.1548028233@sss.pgh.pa.us
>> While there's a nontrivial amount of work needed to make that happen,
>> I think it's doable, and it would lead to a significantly better
>> solution than proceeding along the inlining path could do. My
>> current feeling, therefore, is that we should reject this patch
>> (or at least stick it in the deep freeze) and go work on that plan.
>
> Now that the first of those threads has reached a feature-complete
> state, I feel fairly comfortable in saying that we should drop the
> idea of messing with the inlining heuristics (at least for the
> particular end goal stated in this thread). So I'm going to go
> close this CF entry as returned-with-feedback.
>
> regards, tom lane
Hokay… I’ve read through the patch set, applied it and built it, all works. Am starting to try a test implementation in
PostGISland. Robert’s comment about “PostgreSQL magic” is ringing through my head ... Nodes and Ops and Exprs, oh my!
Whatever doesn’t kill me only makes me stronger, right? :)
P.