Thread: Remove unnecessary relabel stripping
Hi hackers,
Per discussion in [1], we don't need to strip relabel for the expr
explicitly before calling pull_varnos() to retrieve all mentioned
relids. pull_varnos() would recurse into T_RelabelType nodes.
explicitly before calling pull_varnos() to retrieve all mentioned
relids. pull_varnos() would recurse into T_RelabelType nodes.
Add a patch to remove that and simplify the code a bit.
Thanks
Richard
Attachment
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 03:51:40PM +0800, Richard Guo wrote: >Hi hackers, > >Per discussion in [1], we don't need to strip relabel for the expr >explicitly before calling pull_varnos() to retrieve all mentioned >relids. pull_varnos() would recurse into T_RelabelType nodes. > >Add a patch to remove that and simplify the code a bit. > >[1] >https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAMbWs48HF9f%3Dg%2BjSmmYBnWub9%2BWyg5Xh-FoqAnvqAspue5ypAw%40mail.gmail.com#b6e77e4c1ae67e2c5d97dce830b58037 > >Thanks >Richard Thanks, I'll get this pushed (or something similar to this patch) soon. FWIW it'd be better to send the patch to the original thread instead of starting a new one. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:11 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 03:51:40PM +0800, Richard Guo wrote:
>Hi hackers,
>
>Per discussion in [1], we don't need to strip relabel for the expr
>explicitly before calling pull_varnos() to retrieve all mentioned
>relids. pull_varnos() would recurse into T_RelabelType nodes.
>
>Add a patch to remove that and simplify the code a bit.
>
>[1]
>https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAMbWs48HF9f%3Dg%2BjSmmYBnWub9%2BWyg5Xh-FoqAnvqAspue5ypAw%40mail.gmail.com#b6e77e4c1ae67e2c5d97dce830b58037
>
>Thanks
>Richard
Thanks, I'll get this pushed (or something similar to this patch) soon.
Thanks.
FWIW it'd be better to send the patch to the original thread instead of
starting a new one.
Ah yes, you're right. Sorry for not doing so.
Thanks
Richard
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 09:37:41AM +0800, Richard Guo wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:11 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote:> >> FWIW it'd be better to send the patch to the original thread instead of >> starting a new one. > > Ah yes, you're right. Sorry for not doing so. FWIW, I don't find the move from Richard completely incorrect either as the original thread discusses about a crash in incremental sorts with sqlsmith, and here we have a patch to remove a useless operation. Different threads pointing to different issues help to attract sometimes a more correct audience. -- Michael
Attachment
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 01:40:11PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 09:37:41AM +0800, Richard Guo wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:11 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote:> >>> FWIW it'd be better to send the patch to the original thread instead of >>> starting a new one. >> >> Ah yes, you're right. Sorry for not doing so. > >FWIW, I don't find the move from Richard completely incorrect either >as the original thread discusses about a crash in incremental sorts >with sqlsmith, and here we have a patch to remove a useless operation. >Different threads pointing to different issues help to attract >sometimes a more correct audience. Possibly. I agree it's not an entirely clear case. Anyway, I've pushed the fix. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services