MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAHg+QDdDrdqMr98a_OBYDYmK3RaT7XwCEShZfvDYKZpZTfOEjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+HiwqFMboUmHtoGjpLfNAWKitjA4T=jnfca9QrYvoBWrrmY0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <DFB98FAF-9D74-4B5D-8755-FBA8A5D14E36@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DFB98FAF-9D74-4B5D-8755-FBA8A5D14E36@gmail.com>
From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 12:08:19 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CA+HiwqEzH2ndNf+Ss5aeS8QZ1mSENuY_1FNUe5NyOcF-h-R5vw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pg_overexplain produces invalid JSON with RANGE_TABLE option
To: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>
Cc: SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BHiwqEzH2ndNf%2BSs5aeS8QZ1mSENuY_1FNUe5NyOcF-h-R5vw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 10:22=E2=80=AFAM Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> w=
rote:
> > On Apr 16, 2026, at 08:06, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 6:36=E2=80=AFAM SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM
> > <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Hackers,
> >>
> >> It appears that pg_overexplain produces invalid JSON output when
> >> EXPLAIN (FORMAT JSON, RANGE_TABLE) is used. The "Unprunable RTIs" and
> >> "Result RTIs" properties are emitted as key:value pairs directly insid=
e
> >> the "Range Table" JSON array, which is structurally invalid.
> >
> > Thanks for the report and the patch.  That makes sense.
> >
> >> Attempted to fix this by moving ExplainCloseGroup() before the two ove=
rexplain_bitmapset()
> >> calls, so the properties are emitted as siblings of "Range Table" in t=
he parent object rather
> >> than inside the array.
> >>
> >> Attached a patch to address this which also includes a test.
> >
> > I have added a commit message.  Will commit shortly to master and v18.
>
> Hi Amit, as the commit message mentions YAML format as well, but I don=E2=
=80=99t find a test case in pg_overexplain.sql, would it make sense to also=
 add a test case for YAML. I tried to add one, see the attached diff file.

Thanks, but I think the JSON test is sufficient here. The fix is in
format-agnostic code (the ordering of ExplainCloseGroup relative to
the bitmapset calls), so any regression that affects YAML would show
up in the JSON test too.  Generally, we should avoid adding test cases
that only duplicate existing coverage (though I'm sure I've been
guilty of it myself), as this increases the maintenance burden on
expected-output files without catching anything new.

--=20
Thanks, Amit Langote