public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?emVuZ21hbg==?= <[email protected]>
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?B?UGF2ZWwgU3RlaHVsZQ==?= <[email protected]>
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?B?cGdzcWwtaGFja2Vycw==?= <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Inline non-SQL SRFs using SupportRequestSimplify
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 16:37:39 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+renyXxanvX8rnrqTNkZt1r9=rm59MHSG4DDVfsV2aUGe3dUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAFj8pRAH17WO_d9nUWAsV8MXVAVC18Jmn7f+KxGfakEHFY33Xg@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>

"=?ISO-8859-1?B?emVuZ21hbg==?=" <[email protected]> writes:
> I've noticed this interesting feature and would like to modify this test case to clarify that we fall back to the original logic when inlining fails. 
> This is a small change that doesn't touch core code. What do you all think?

I think this looks like a waste of test cycles.  AFAICS it won't add
even a single line of code coverage for inline_function_in_from().
Why do you think we need it?

			regards, tom lane

view thread (19+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Inline non-SQL SRFs using SupportRequestSimplify
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox