From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Drouvot, Bertrand <bdrouvot@amazon.com>
Subject: Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 16:40:08 -0500
Message-ID: <413164.1676065208@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y+Wr5TKqD+KHaFon@paquier.xyz>
References: <bf604c8d-b6e9-284b-327a-cac8417a74e8@enterprisedb.com>
<Y8+BdCOjxykre5es@paquier.xyz>
<9695f035-0f2b-92b9-deed-0b7e5bb7e4e0@enterprisedb.com>
<Y9M+C2obzgRnXPNd@paquier.xyz>
<268fd337-8bb7-92e6-0da2-416c022c11f3@enterprisedb.com>
<Y9i3+PdW+REPD2oE@paquier.xyz>
<3344827.1675809127@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<Y+NFl6N1QWb4ftUy@paquier.xyz>
<Y+V4iQgI0DKi8pnE@paquier.xyz>
<3972105.1675984370@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<Y+Wr5TKqD+KHaFon@paquier.xyz>
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> Okay, understood. Following this string of thoughts, I am a bit
> surprised for two cases, though:
> - PartitionPruneStep.
> - Plan.
> Both are abstract and both are marked with no_equal. I guess that
> applying no_query_jumble to both of them is fine, and that's what you
> mean?
On second thought, the point of that is to allow the no_equal property
to automatically inherit to child node types, so doing likewise
for no_query_jumble is sensible.
>> The changes in parsenodes.h seem wrong, except for RawStmt. Those node
>> types are used in parsed queries, aren't they?
> RTEPermissionInfo is a recent addition, as of a61b1f7. This commit
> documents it as a plan node, still it is part of a Query while being
> ignored in the query jumbling since its introduction, so I am a bit
> confused by this one.
Hmm ... it is part of Query, so that documentation is wrong, and the
fact that it's not reached by query jumbling kind of seems like a bug.
However, it might be that everything in it is derived from something
else that *is* covered by jumbling, in which case that's okay, if
underdocumented.
> ... Peter E. has
> mentioned upthread that a few nodes should include more jumbling while
> some other parts should be ignored. This should be analyzed
> separately because ~15 does not seem to be strictly right, either.
Yeah. It'd surprise me not at all if people have overlooked that.
v2 looks good to me as far as it goes. I agree these other questions
deserve a separate look.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, michael@paquier.xyz, peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, bdrouvot@amazon.com
Subject: Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl
In-Reply-To: <413164.1676065208@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox