| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeremy Schneider <schnjere(at)amazon(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Query Jumbling for CALL and SET utility statements |
| Date: | 2022-10-07 04:13:05 |
| Message-ID: | Yz+nUUVc3UtJtU6q@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 11:51:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've been thinking since the beginning of this thread that there
> was no coherent, defensible rationale being offered for jumbling
> some utility statements and not others.
Yeah. The potential performance impact of all the TransactionStmts
worries me a bit, though.
> I wonder if the answer is to jumble them all. We avoided that
> up to now because it would imply a ton of manual effort and
> future code maintenance ... but now that the backend/nodes/
> infrastructure is largely auto-generated, could we auto-generate
> the jumbling code?
Probably. One part that may be tricky though is the location of the
constants we'd like to make generic, but perhaps this could be handled
by using a dedicated variable type that just maps to int? It does not
seem like a mandatory requirement to add that everywhere as a first
step, either.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-10-07 04:18:26 | Re: Query Jumbling for CALL and SET utility statements |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2022-10-07 03:51:55 | Re: shadow variables - pg15 edition |