On 2016/10/27 18:06, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> On 2016/10/26 19:53, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Etsuro Fujita
>>>> My concern about your proposal is: it might not be worth complicating the
>>>> code to solve a problem that is actually not a problem in practice.
>>> To me the current code looks complicated esp. because of the recursion
>>> involved and usage of out parameters to isSubqueryExpr().
>> I don't think so. isSubqueryExpr is prety small, written in less than 50
>> lines, and the code looks rather simple to me.
>>> My
>>> suggestion goes inline with the current method of deparsing a Var.
>> Yeah, I think your approach makes it easy to search for the alias to a given
>> Var from the array you proposed. I think the complexity of your approach
>> would be in extra work for building and maintaining the array while
>> deparsing the query. I think that would probably need more invasive and
>> much larger changes to the existing code than what I proposed.
>>
>> I think this issue is optional, so I'd like to propose to leave this for the
>> committer's judge.
> Fine with me.
OK
Here is the updated version, which includes the restructuring you
proposed. Other than the above issue and the alias issue we discussed,
I addressed all your comments except one on testing; I tried to add test
cases where the remote query is deparsed as nested subqueries, but I
couldn't because IIUC, reduce_outer_joins reduced full joins to inner
joins or left joins. So, I added two test cases: (1) the joining
relations are both base relations (actually, we already have that) and
(2) one of the joining relations is a base relation and the other is a
join relation. I rebased the patch to HEAD, so I added a test case with
aggregate pushdown also.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
