Re: Deparsing rewritten query

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Gilles Darold <gilles(at)darold(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Deparsing rewritten query
Date: 2022-02-04 09:35:25
Message-ID: 20220204093525.op4mr4jqied5jagb@jrouhaud
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 07:49:41PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> I checked this trivial patch, and I don't see any problem. Again I run
> check-world with success. The documentation for this feature is not
> necessary. But I am not sure about regress tests. Without any other code,
> enfosing printalias will be invisible. What do you think about the
> transformation of your extension to a new module in src/test/modules? Maybe
> it can be used for other checks in future.

I'm not opposed, but previously Tom explicitly said that he thinks this feature
is useless and is strongly opposed to making any kind of promise that the
current interface to make it possible (if get_query_def() is exposed) would be
maintained. Adding such a test module would probably a reason to reject the
patch altogether. I'm just hoping that this change, which is a no-op for
any legal query, is acceptable. It can only break something if you feed wrong
data to get_query_def(), which would be my problem and not the project's
problem.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sergey Dudoladov 2022-02-04 09:58:24 Re: Add connection active, idle time to pg_stat_activity
Previous Message houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com 2022-02-04 09:28:49 RE: row filtering for logical replication