From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "=?ISO-8859-1?B?emVuZ21hbg==?=" <zengman@halodbtech.com>
cc: "=?ISO-8859-1?B?UGF2ZWwgU3RlaHVsZQ==?=" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>,
        "=?ISO-8859-1?B?cGdzcWwtaGFja2Vycw==?="
 <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Inline non-SQL SRFs using SupportRequestSimplify
In-reply-to: <tencent_3EF6CE184AC6A8910C540D6F@qq.com>
References: <09de6afa-c33d-4d94-a5cb-afc6cea0d2bb@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <ffd7937d-190c-4f09-9418-5345728b45c4@iki.fi>
 <1755478.1722020334@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <956f8a6f-32a7-49ab-92a3-dca5c8afe112@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <1466725.1725381721@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <33b10538-2c88-4278-a65f-0c1e6f265cb7@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <737313.1752528083@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+renyXxanvX8rnrqTNkZt1r9=rm59MHSG4DDVfsV2aUGe3dUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <440458.1763858681@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAFj8pRAH17WO_d9nUWAsV8MXVAVC18Jmn7f+KxGfakEHFY33Xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <tencent_3EF6CE184AC6A8910C540D6F@qq.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "=?ISO-8859-1?B?emVuZ21hbg==?=" <zengman@halodbtech.com>
	message dated "Sat, 20 Dec 2025 12:23:41 +0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <7370.1766266659.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 16:37:39 -0500
Message-ID: <7371.1766266659@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7371.1766266659%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"=3D?ISO-8859-1?B?emVuZ21hbg=3D=3D?=3D" <zengman@halodbtech.com> 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 fai=
ls. =

> This is a small change that doesn't touch core code. What do you all thi=
nk?

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