| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexandra Wang <alexandra(dot)wang(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "bruce(at)momjian(dot)us" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: plan shape work |
| Date: | 2025-09-29 02:41:47 |
| Message-ID: | 129248.1759113707@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 11:23 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> As an example of edge cases that your idea introduces, what happens
>> if a user-written subquery name is "expr_999999999999999999999999"
>> and then we need to generate a unique name based on "expr"? Now
>> we have an integer-overflow situation to worry about, with possibly
>> platform-dependent results.
> I'd argue that this hypothetical edge case can be resolved with a bit
> of canonicalization in how subplan names are represented internally.
[ raised eyebrow... ] How did you get to that from the complaint
that Robert's patch was not obviously bug-free? (A complaint I
thought was unmerited, but nevermind.) This proposal is neither
simple, nor obviously bug-free. Moreover, in view of comments
upthread, I think we should look with great suspicion on any
proposal that involves changing user-supplied subquery aliases
unnecessarily.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2025-09-29 03:28:12 | Re: Skipping schema changes in publication |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2025-09-29 02:33:54 | Re: Optimize LISTEN/NOTIFY |