From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: magical eref alias names |
Date: | 2024-11-07 21:29:38 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZJLbnAmvsUpSBXh=pYYuS+knG7zK18znwb7A+abgKh9g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 4:07 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Is there some strong reason to insist on making that core-dump-risking
> change, rather than simply assigning the now-one-size-fits-all alias
> when creating Alias nodes?
What I'm unhappy about is not being able to tell the difference
between a name that was invented by or at least meaningful to the user
and one that isn't. Filling in unnamed_subquery everywhere doesn't
accomplish that because the user could in theory supply that name;
even if that were no issue, I do not want to have code like:
if (strcmp(aliasname, "unnamed_subquery") == 0 || (strncmp(aliasname,
"unnamed_subquery_", strlen("unnamed_subquery_") && something
complicated with strtol to see if the rest of the name is an integer))
... looks system generated ...
else
... looks user generated ...
I would be more sympathetic to the idea of system-generated aliases if
they were generated in a way that made it likely that they would be
meaningful to the user. In fact, if they were generated in such a way
that they would be unique, that would actually be fantastic and I
would definitely not be arguing for removing them. But I think what we
have right now is a mess.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Devulapalli, Raghuveer | 2024-11-07 21:30:32 | RE: Use __attribute__((target(sse4.2))) for SSE42 CRC32C |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-11-07 21:07:46 | Re: magical eref alias names |