| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Remove a unused argument from qual_is_pushdown_safe |
| Date: | 2022-11-28 14:15:30 |
| Message-ID: | 540228.1669644930@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 Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 11:54:45AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 04:05:13PM +0800, Richard Guo wrote:
> I wonder if we need to revise the comment atop qual_is_pushdown_safe()
> too which says
>
> * rinfo is a restriction clause applying to the given subquery (whose RTE
> * has index rti in the parent query).
>
> since there is no 'given subquery' after we remove it from the params.
> I was thinking about this point, and it seems to me that we could just
> do s/the given subquery/a subquery/. But perhaps you have a different
> view on the matter?
My viewpoint is that this change is misguided. Even if the current
coding of qual_is_pushdown_safe doesn't happen to reference the
subquery, it might need to in future.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2022-11-28 14:31:33 | Re: Remove a unused argument from qual_is_pushdown_safe |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-28 14:08:47 | Re: Reducing power consumption on idle servers |