| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bernice Southey <bernice(dot)southey(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Second RewriteQuery complains about first RewriteQuery in edge case |
| Date: | 2025-11-29 12:42:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCWfNB6PjQgm_1U-PymE8FAZvSKbC2LntHa3YbYohMtffg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 at 21:40, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Yeah, this looks pretty good. Two nitpicky suggestions:
>
> * Perhaps using foreach_current_index() would be better than
> adding the separate loop variable "i" in RewriteQuery.
Ah, good point. I'd forgotten about that macro.
> * I think it would be wise to add a comment about this in
> rewriteRuleAction too, perhaps along the lines of
>
> - /* OK, it's safe to combine the CTE lists */
> + /*
> + * OK, it's safe to combine the CTE lists. Beware that RewriteQuery
> + * knows we concatenate the lists in this order.
> + */
> sub_action->cteList = list_concat(sub_action->cteList,
> copyObject(parsetree->cteList));
Agreed. Done that way.
Thanks for reviewing.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2025-11-29 12:45:20 | Re: Second RewriteQuery complains about first RewriteQuery in edge case |
| Previous Message | Jim Jones | 2025-11-29 12:38:32 | Re: [PoC] XMLCast (SQL/XML X025) |