Re: Alias of VALUES RTE in explain plan

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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.