Re: Patch for removng unused targets - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Etsuro Fujita
Subject Re: Patch for removng unused targets
Date
Msg-id 009201ce6c1d$84eb7d40$8ec277c0$@lab.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch for removng unused targets  ("Etsuro Fujita" <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Patch for removng unused targets
Re: Patch for removng unused targets
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Alexander,

I wrote:
> > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> 
> > > resjunk means that the target is not supposed to be output by the query.
> > > Since it's there at all, it's presumably referenced by ORDER BY or GROUP
> > > BY or DISTINCT ON, but the meaning of the flag doesn't depend on that.
> 
> > > What you would need to do is verify that the target is resjunk and not
> > > used in any clause besides ORDER BY.  I have not read your patch, but
> > > I rather imagine that what you've got now is that the parser checks this
> > > and sets the new flag for consumption far downstream.  Why not just make
> > > the same check in the planner?
> 
> > I've created a patch using this approach.
> 
> I've rebased the above patch against the latest head.  Could you review the
> patch?  If you have no objection, I'd like to mark the patch "ready for
> committer".

Sorry, I've had a cleanup of the patch.  Please find attached the patch.

Thanks,

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review])
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Memory leak in PL/pgSQL function which CREATE/SELECT/DROP a temporary table