| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| 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: | 2023-01-20 10:56:00 |
| Message-ID: | e4d61d52-4992-d190-b5ad-48c6c752942c@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 20.01.23 05:35, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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?
> As a result, I have rebased the patch set to use the two-attribute
> approach: query_jumble_ignore and query_jumble_location.
Structurally, this looks okay to me now.
In your 0001 patch, most of the comment reformattings for location
fields are no longer needed, so you should undo those.
The 0002 patch looks good.
Those two could be committed with those adjustments, I think.
I'll read the 0003 again more carefully. I haven't studied the new 0004
yet.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-01-20 11:13:09 | Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc? |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-01-20 10:45:27 | Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication |