Re: Patch for removng unused targets

Hi Alexander,

Thank you for the check! I marked the patch "ready for committer".

Best regards,

Etsuro Fujita

From: Alexander Korotkov [mailto:aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:26 AM
To: Etsuro Fujita
Cc: Tom Lane; pgsql-hackers
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Hi Etsuro!

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
wrote:

Hi Alexander,

I wrote:
> > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> > > resjunk means that the target is not supposed to be output by the query.
> > > Since it's there at all, it's presumably referenced by ORDER BY or GROUP
> > > BY or DISTINCT ON, but the meaning of the flag doesn't depend on that.
>
> > > What you would need to do is verify that the target is resjunk and not
> > > used in any clause besides ORDER BY. I have not read your patch, but
> > > I rather imagine that what you've got now is that the parser checks this
> > > and sets the new flag for consumption far downstream. Why not just make
> > > the same check in the planner?
>
> > I've created a patch using this approach.
>
> I've rebased the above patch against the latest head. Could you review the
> patch? If you have no objection, I'd like to mark the patch "ready for
> committer".

Sorry, I've had a cleanup of the patch. Please find attached the patch.

I've checked the attached patch. It looks good for me. No objection to mark it
"ready for committer".

------
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.