| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleanup: remove unused fields from nodes |
| Date: | 2024-04-24 03:03:40 |
| Message-ID: | 3596755.1713927820@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 01:01:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That is, query jumbling no longer distinguishes "DEALLOCATE x" from
>> "DEALLOCATE ALL", because the DeallocateStmt.name field is marked
>> query_jumble_ignore. Now maybe that's fine, but it's a point
>> we'd not considered so far in this thread. Thoughts?
> And of course, I've managed to forget about bb45156f342c and the
> reason behind the addition of the field is to be able to make the
> difference between the named and ALL cases for DEALLOCATE, around
> here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZNq9kRwWbKzvR%2B2a%40paquier.xyz
Hah. Seems like the comment for isall needs to explain that it
exists for this purpose, so we don't make this mistake again.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2024-04-24 03:12:44 | Re: Row pattern recognition |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-04-24 02:57:05 | Re: Cleanup: remove unused fields from nodes |