MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAExHW5sh28_gwQP4=X4i4kMsAYaoSi3tsNse3LaTihV=eWuTcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA9OW9dnt9u9EbDf6JZ10ezXFSCPNYSVsCAXcBPKXcW6yw7YYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA9OW9eeiwOPO9haeGHFgWkdQo8UOw3xr6hbcKehw=1BJMjuQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3002521.1729877700@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3037675.1729884114@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAA9OW9cL+d-uDA9OxcvLTRnqtVdgFq4A_rVdjtQp_bcAWhjbiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3811251.1730059657@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAA9OW9dLo34sT7xE1fA_fncs-J2e+qAC3dkCKs=zynmLQVt3qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1fcac348-f3a5-46f8-97fc-f18085d21aa4@gmail.com> <CAExHW5vTam-yyjy0pPS5HTFHPHBEACzAJ2+DeL5TmfmzKTOdcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3969781.1730128614@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <3969781.1730128614@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 19:08:27 +0530
Message-ID: <CAExHW5tOanFBOrX-KSyY1nnw0ipqPfa9t8+gNYOX8OUZF-MfSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Alias of VALUES RTE in explain plan
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>, Yasir <yasir.hussain.shah@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/CAExHW5tOanFBOrX-KSyY1nnw0ipqPfa9t8%2BgNYOX8OUZF-MfSw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 8:46=E2=80=AFPM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> writes:
> > The patch looks good to me, except the name of the new member.
>
> >   CommonTableExpr *p_parent_cte; /* this query's containing CTE */
> > + Alias    *p_parent_alias; /* parent's alias for this query */
>
> > the two "parent"s here mean different things and that might lead one
> > to assume that the p_parent_alias refers to alias of CTE. The comment
> > adds to the confusion since it mentions parent. How about renaming it
> > as p_outer_alias? or something which indicates alias of the outer
> > query?
>
> Hmm, I figured the two "parent" references do mean the same thing,
> ie the immediately surrounding syntactic construct.  While I won't
> fight hard about it, I don't see an advantage in naming the new
> field differently.  We could make the comment be
>
>         /* outer level's alias for this query */
WFM.


--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat