Re: Inline non-SQL SRFs using SupportRequestSimplify

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: zengman <zengman(at)halodbtech(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Inline non-SQL SRFs using SupportRequestSimplify
Date: 2025-12-20 21:37:39
Message-ID: 7371.1766266659@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"=?ISO-8859-1?B?emVuZ21hbg==?=" <zengman(at)halodbtech(dot)com> writes:
> I've noticed this interesting feature and would like to modify this test case to clarify that we fall back to the original logic when inlining fails.
> This is a small change that doesn't touch core code. What do you all think?

I think this looks like a waste of test cycles. AFAICS it won't add
even a single line of code coverage for inline_function_in_from().
Why do you think we need it?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2025-12-20 22:49:24 Re: should we have a fast-path planning for OLTP starjoins?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-12-20 21:31:13 Re: Fix typo 586/686 in atomics/arch-x86.h