On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 10:27, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > The part I wouldn't mind another set of eyes on is the ruleutils.c
> > changes.
>
> Um, sorry for not getting to this sooner.
>
> What I had in mind was to revert 1cc29fe7c's ruleutils changes
> entirely, so that ruleutils deals only in Plans not PlanStates.
> Perhaps we've grown some code since then that really needs the
> PlanStates, but what is that, and could we do it some other way?
> I'm not thrilled with passing both of these around, especially
> if the PlanState sometimes isn't there, meaning that no code in
> ruleutils could safely assume it's there anyway.
Are you not worried about the confusion that run-time pruning might
cause if we always show the Vars from the first Append/MergeAppend
plan node, even though the corresponding executor node might have been
pruned?
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
