From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
        Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        "Drouvot,
    Bertrand" <bdrouvot@amazon.com>
Subject: Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Fri, 10 Feb 2023 11:28:53 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <413163.1676065208.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 16:40:08 -0500
Message-ID: <413164.1676065208@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/413164.1676065208%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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