| From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove no-op PlaceHolderVars |
| Date: | 2026-01-16 06:21:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAMbWs49B8KrvYvRQfhkFvBb_rRyBHv61S29sYO7W+gP3Cve3eQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 12:37 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> My immediate reaction is "how sure are you that they're no-ops"?
> I recall that there are places where we intentionally insert PHVs
> to preserve the separate identity of the contained expression
> (so that, for example, it can be matched to a subquery output
> later).
The new phpreserved flag is used for that purpose, as explained in the
commit message and the code comments.
> Do we generate a PHV at all in that case? Seems like we could
> deal with that by adding to the Var's varnullingrels instead of
> making a wrapper node.
The Var can be a reference to something outside the subquery being
pulled up. If it is a reference to the non-nullable side, we'll have
to wrap it in a PHV to ensure that it is forced to null when the outer
join should do so.
- Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2026-01-16 06:32:06 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2026-01-16 06:00:00 | Re: Bug in amcheck? |