| From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Update comments in functions for statistics import in postgres_fdw.c |
| Date: | 2026-11-12 02:29:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAPmGK1427Kg0cfC9ZSAH-_YMToZiYFqit7AEaZVYias+hdrA+A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 11, 2026 at 9:39 AM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 2026, at 18:04, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2026 at 6:50 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> As I understand it, you are saying we need to separate the version
> >> parameter from statistical value parameters, but the comment for
> >> import_attribute_statistics says:
> >>
> >> * Import attribute statistics from NullableDatum inputs for all statistical
> >> * values.
> >> *
> >> * For now, the 'version' argument is ignored. In the future it can be used
> >> * to interpret older statistics properly.
> > I mean the term "statistical values" includes a version value. Sorry.
> I was considering the version parameter as metadata for the statistical values, which could be used to distinguish between different sets of statistical values. But I see your point now. Treating the version parameter as a statistical value parameter also makes sense to me. No objection from my side.
On reflection I changed my mind. As pointed out by you, what I
proposed isn't very clear. So I modified the patch based on your idea
(ie, s/statistical value parameters/NullableDatum arguments/), then
pushed/back-patched it.
Thanks again!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | João Rito | 2026-11-12 02:30:29 | Re: [BUG] ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE SET x = EXCLUDED.<virtual-generated-column> errors or silently writes NULL |
| Previous Message | João Rito | 2026-11-12 02:27:52 | Re: [PATCH v2] Avoid carrying self lock-only xmax to updated tuple |