On 19/06/2026 15:28, Nishant Sharma wrote:
> Thanks for the v0 patch set!
>
> The topic is new to me. I thought I would review it to see if I could learn
> something.
>
> Code changes are small, simple and clean.
Thanks for your interest!
>
> Here are my comments:
> 1. Should we add a test case that confirms the comment: "this never appears in
> deparsed views, rules, or other stored expressions". Also, what about multirange
> tests?
Ok, done.
> 2. I see that the word "hashed" is added for all valid hashfuncid in the plan,
> which implies that hash is used instead of array for those cases. If this is
> being done, why not explicitly include "linear" or "array" for non-valid
> hashfuncid instead of keeping "" empty, given that the goal is to provide more
> information? I saw too many differences in existing tests and also in the
> upgrade test in make check world. So, I think that's not a good idea.
Here, we just follow the hashed SubPlan approach. I think we don't need anything
else here.
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov,
pgEdge
