From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Revert: Remove useless self-joins *and* -DREALLOCATE_BITMAPSETS make server crash, regress test fail.
In-reply-to: <CAMbWs49fy=f-jCd7s33d9AGjnYZn6R8TEDU6armi7Yo6QHCKiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACJufxFVQmr4=JWHAOSLuKA5Zy9H26nY6tVrRFBOekHoALyCkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAApHDvpBMSGhXVeFdw_qmjPqU5yHvJJ7k0z7kD069EC4di2Pag@mail.gmail.com> <CAMbWs4-iYKxrMs8kj+49gVA4X1_=PYAaw5HL_3g_yVXpAHzYww@mail.gmail.com> <1e6ca7b3-98e6-46b2-9982-97f92c7523d8@dunslane.net> <76910.1715106055@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAApHDvoR9cXHb_+j7j8=zBty35B8z22SX51cZN7ZRf+QTPJ1fA@mail.gmail.com> <276516.1715121616@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAApHDvrvcJd2DCAV0vDKmRxp5tvXq3=+RwhRns4OjoHQ1UbDEg@mail.gmail.com> <279607.1715122556@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAApHDvqRgYq8yL3GUj-1z2xPv6cLy7D4tjxhhijWnsHLOSukLg@mail.gmail.com> <282081.1715123889@sss.pgh.pa.us> <815049.1715192644@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAApHDvp5Az4MA3r1REaV=NyTF=30qNhe+N=OWb5g_edAvS+rCA@mail.gmail.com> <936562.1715208033@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAMbWs49fy=f-jCd7s33d9AGjnYZn6R8TEDU6armi7Yo6QHCKiw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 09 May 2024 10:43:31 +0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1185948.1715267228.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2024 11:07:08 -0400
Message-ID: <1185949.1715267228@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1185949.1715267228%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes:
> I also think it seems better to do bms_copy in separate steps, not only
> because this keeps consistent with the existing code in
> remove_rel_from_restrictinfo, but also because we need to do
> bms_del_member twice for each lefthand/righthand relid set.

Yeah.  Of course, we don't need a bms_copy() in the second one,
but that'd just add even more asymmetry and chance for confusion.

> Speaking of consistency, do you think it would improve the code's
> readability if we rearrange the code in remove_rel_from_query so that
> the modifications of the same relid set are grouped together, just like
> what we do in remove_rel_from_restrictinfo?

I left it alone, just because it didn't seem worth cluttering "git
blame" here.

			regards, tom lane