On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 4:31 PM Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 6:17 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 9:16 PM Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I figured out it's because I have `-DWRITE_READ_PARSE_PLAN_TREES` this option,
> > > removing this option clears the warning, but I'm not sure if this is a
> > > hidden issue.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the hint. I found the issue and the fix appears in 0004.
> > Some members of RangeTblEntry were not being handled in read/out
> > functions.
>
> Thanks for the fix, I will apply and test again.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > 0001-0009 patches are the same as the previous set sans mergeconflict fixes.
> > > > 0010 - is test for \dGx - to make sure that the extended format output
> > > > works with \dG. We may decide not to have this patch in the final
> > > > commit. But no harm in being there til that point.
> > >
> > > I have some changes based on the latest patch set. I attached two patches with
> > > the following summary.
> > >
> > > 0001:
> > > - doc: some of the query in ddl.sgml can not be executed
> >
> > The standard seems to require a property reference to be qualified by
> > element pattern variable, even if the property is referenced within
> > the same element pattern bound to the variable. Hence I accepted your
> > document fixes which qualify property reference with element pattern
> > variable.
> >
> > However, I didn't understand why you changed a LABEL name from order to order_.
>
> Ah, that's because `order` is a keyword of SQL(order by), so the alias
> is a conflict.
> I'm not saying `order_` is a good name though.
I didn't realize that. Thanks for catching. In that case just orders
or cust_orders?
>
> >
> > > - after path factor was introduced, some comments doesn't apply
> >
> > Thanks pointing those out. Accepted after rephrasing those and also
> > correcting some related comments.
> >
> > >
> > > 0002:
> > > - add a get_propgraph_element_alias_name function and do some trivial refactor
> > >
> >
> > I see you have added some negative tests - object not found tests, but
> > I didn't see positive tests. Hence I haven't added those changes in
> > the attached patchset. But we certainly need those changes. You may
> > want to submit a patch with positive tests. That code needs to be
> > fixed before committing anyway.
>
> Ok, I'll add positive tests.
Thanks.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
