Re: Getting rid of SQLValueFunction

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Getting rid of SQLValueFunction
Date: 2022-10-21 02:57:48
Message-ID: Y1IKrNz7TxRCzPKM@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 03:45:48PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> With this in mind, would somebody complain if I commit that? That's a
> nice reduction in code, while completing the work done in 40c24bf:
> 25 files changed, 338 insertions(+), 477 deletions(-)

On second look, there is something I have underestimated here with
FigureColnameInternal(). This function would create an attribute name
based on the SQL keyword given in input. For example, on HEAD we
would get that:
=# SELECT * FROM CURRENT_CATALOG;
current_catalog
-----------------
postgres
(1 row)

But the patch enforces the attribute name to be the underlying
function name, switching the previous "current_catalog" to
"current_database". For example:
=# SELECT * FROM CURRENT_CATALOG;
current_database
------------------
postgres
(1 row)

I am not sure how much it matters in practice, but this could break
some queries. One way to tackle that is to extend
FigureColnameInternal() so as we use a compatible name when the node
is a T_FuncCall, but that won't be entirely water-proof as long as
there is not a one-one mapping between the SQL keywords and the
underlying function names, aka we would need a current_catalog.
"user" would be also too generic as a catalog function name, so we
should name its proc entry to a pg_user anyway, requiring a shortcut
in FigureColnameInternal(). Or perhaps I am worrying too much and
keeping the code simpler is better? Does the SQL specification
require that the attribute name has to match its SQL keyword when
specified in a FROM clause when there is no aliases?

Thoughts?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-10-21 03:10:22 Re: Getting rid of SQLValueFunction
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2022-10-21 02:31:22 Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("prev_first_lsn < cur_txn->first_lsn", File: "reorderbuffer.c", Line: 927, PID: 568639)