| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl |
| Date: | 2023-01-19 08:46:37 |
| Message-ID: | Y8kDbQluozdea/Oo@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 09:42:03AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I see that in the 0003 patch, most location fields now have an explicit
> markup with query_jumble_ignore. I thought we had previously resolved to
> consider location fields to be automatically ignored unless explicitly
> included (like for the Const node). This appears to invert that? Am I
> missing something?
My misunderstanding then, I thought that you were OK with what was
part of v1, where all these fields was marked as "ignore". But you
actually prefer v2, with the second field "location" on top of
"ignore". I can update 0003 to refresh that.
Would you be OK if I apply 0001 (with the comments of the locations
still reshaped to ease future property additions) and 0002?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2023-01-19 08:51:01 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-01-19 08:42:03 | Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl |