Thread: Remove useless param for create_groupingsets_path
Dear Postgres,
Recently I work on grouping sets and I find the last param numGroups of create_groupingsets_path is not used.
In create_groupingsets_path we use rollup->numGroups to do cost_agg. So I remove the param numGroups for
create_groupingsets_path.
I generate a diff.patch, which is sent as an attachment.
I really hope this can be committed to Postgres. Thank you a lot!
Best wishes to you!
zxuejing
Attachment
Recently I work on grouping sets and I find the last param numGroups of create_groupingsets_path is not used.
In create_groupingsets_path we use rollup->numGroups to do cost_agg.
introduced in create_groupingsets_path(), and then all its references
inside that function were removed and replaced with the numGroups inside
RollupData in b5635948.
I generate a diff.patch, which is sent as an attachment.
direction, i.e. it's adding the param 'numGroups', not removing it.
Thanks
Hi, Richard
You are right, The patch is incorrect, and I generate a patch once more, It is sent as as attachment named new,patch, please check, thanks!
Best regards!
Zxuejing
From: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Date: 2022-06-15 12:12
To: XueJing Zhao <zxuejing@vmware.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Remove useless param for create_groupingsets_path
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 11:33 AM XueJing Zhao <zxuejing@vmware.com> wrote:
Recently I work on grouping sets and I find the last param numGroups of create_groupingsets_path is not used.
In create_groupingsets_path we use rollup->numGroups to do cost_agg.
Yes indeed. The param 'numGroups' was used originally when we first
introduced in create_groupingsets_path(), and then all its references
inside that function were removed and replaced with the numGroups inside
RollupData in b5635948.
I generate a diff.patch, which is sent as an attachment.
BTW, the patch looks weird to me that it seems operates in the inverse
direction, i.e. it's adding the param 'numGroups', not removing it.
Thanks
Richard
Attachment
XueJing Zhao <zxuejing@vmware.com> writes:
> You are right, The patch is incorrect, and I generate a patch once more, It is sent as as attachment named new,patch,
pleasecheck, thanks!
LGTM. Pushed, thanks!
regards, tom lane