From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yasir <yasir(dot)hussain(dot)shah(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Alias of VALUES RTE in explain plan |
Date: | 2024-10-28 15:16:54 |
Message-ID: | 3969781.1730128614@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The patch looks good to me, except the name of the new member.
> CommonTableExpr *p_parent_cte; /* this query's containing CTE */
> + Alias *p_parent_alias; /* parent's alias for this query */
> the two "parent"s here mean different things and that might lead one
> to assume that the p_parent_alias refers to alias of CTE. The comment
> adds to the confusion since it mentions parent. How about renaming it
> as p_outer_alias? or something which indicates alias of the outer
> query?
Hmm, I figured the two "parent" references do mean the same thing,
ie the immediately surrounding syntactic construct. While I won't
fight hard about it, I don't see an advantage in naming the new
field differently. We could make the comment be
/* outer level's alias for this query */
if that helps any.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-10-28 15:20:42 | Proper object locking for GRANT/REVOKE |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-10-28 15:12:59 | Re: Assertion failure when autovacuum drops orphan temp indexes. |