| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Revert: Remove useless self-joins *and* -DREALLOCATE_BITMAPSETS make server crash, regress test fail. |
| Date: | 2024-05-09 15:07:08 |
| Message-ID: | 1185949.1715267228@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I also think it seems better to do bms_copy in separate steps, not only
> because this keeps consistent with the existing code in
> remove_rel_from_restrictinfo, but also because we need to do
> bms_del_member twice for each lefthand/righthand relid set.
Yeah. Of course, we don't need a bms_copy() in the second one,
but that'd just add even more asymmetry and chance for confusion.
> Speaking of consistency, do you think it would improve the code's
> readability if we rearrange the code in remove_rel_from_query so that
> the modifications of the same relid set are grouped together, just like
> what we do in remove_rel_from_restrictinfo?
I left it alone, just because it didn't seem worth cluttering "git
blame" here.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2024-05-09 15:08:34 | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-05-09 14:58:56 | Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ? |