| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: queryId constant squashing does not support prepared statements |
| Date: | 2025-06-09 15:09:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0sW6Qq91AAn4zLoK9+XgcE5KFmgtk64xpN_xAfqDqb=Ng@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I've spent a bunch of time looking at this series and here's my take on
> the second one.
Thanks!
> I realized that the whole in_expr production in gram.y is pointless, and
> the whole private struct that was added was unnecessary. A much simpler
> solution is to remove in_expr, expand its use in a_expr to the two
> possibilities, and with that we can remove the need for a new struct.
Nice simplification.
> I also added a recursive call in IsSquashableExpression to itself. The
I agree with this. I was thinking about a follow-up patch for this based on
the discussion above, but why not just add it now.
> Barring objections, I'll push this soon, then look at rebasing 0003 on
> top, which I expect to be an easy job.
LGTM.
--
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2025-06-09 15:34:14 | Re: Amcheck verification of GiST and GIN |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-06-09 14:49:27 | Re: strange perf regression with data checksums |