From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: queryId constant squashing does not support prepared statements |
Date: | 2025-06-09 10:44:59 |
Message-ID: | 202506091044.hj6p54uzytq7@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
I've spent a bunch of time looking at this series and here's my take on
the second one. (The testing patch is unchanged from Sami's). The
third patch (for PARAM_EXTERNs) should be a mostly trivial rebase on top
of these two.
I realized that the whole in_expr production in gram.y is pointless, and
the whole private struct that was added was unnecessary. A much simpler
solution is to remove in_expr, expand its use in a_expr to the two
possibilities, and with that we can remove the need for a new struct.
I also added a recursive call in IsSquashableExpression to itself. The
check for stack depth can be done without throwing an error. I tested
this by adding stack bloat in that function. I also renamed it to
IsSquashableConstant. This changes one of the tests, because a cast
sequence like 42::int::bigint::int is considered squashable.
Other than that, the changes are cosmetic.
Barring objections, I'll push this soon, then look at rebasing 0003 on
top, which I expect to be an easy job.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v9-0001-Enhanced-query-jumbling-squashing-tests.patch | text/x-diff | 41.1 KB |
v9-0002-Fix-Normalization-for-squashed-query-texts.patch | text/x-diff | 29.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2025-06-09 10:50:39 | Re: Add enable_groupagg GUC parameter to control GroupAggregate usage |
Previous Message | Antonin Houska | 2025-06-09 10:35:57 | Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY? |