| From: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nishant Sharma <nishant(dot)sharma(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Show hashed SAOP decision in EXPLAIN |
| Date: | 2026-06-22 09:14:24 |
| Message-ID: | 23833a20-ace1-484b-b176-18cd32c6cdf6@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19/06/2026 15:28, Nishant Sharma wrote:
> Thanks for the v0 patch set!
>
> The topic is new to me. I thought I would review it to see if I could learn
> something.
>
> Code changes are small, simple and clean.
Thanks for your interest!
>
> Here are my comments:
> 1. Should we add a test case that confirms the comment: "this never appears in
> deparsed views, rules, or other stored expressions". Also, what about multirange
> tests?
Ok, done.
> 2. I see that the word "hashed" is added for all valid hashfuncid in the plan,
> which implies that hash is used instead of array for those cases. If this is
> being done, why not explicitly include "linear" or "array" for non-valid
> hashfuncid instead of keeping "" empty, given that the goal is to provide more
> information? I saw too many differences in existing tests and also in the
> upgrade test in make check world. So, I think that's not a good idea.
Here, we just follow the hashed SubPlan approach. I think we don't need anything
else here.
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov,
pgEdge
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-Show-hashed-ScalarArrayOpExpr-decision-in-EXPLAIN.patch | text/plain | 15.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2026-06-22 09:21:43 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-06-22 09:07:53 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |