| From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Compute attr_needed for child relations (was Re: inherit support for foreign tables) |
| Date: | 2014-08-27 01:50:10 |
| Message-ID: | 53FD3952.6030309@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(2014/08/27 3:27), Tom Lane wrote:
> Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> [ attr_needed-v4.patch ]
>
> I looked this over, and TBH I'm rather disappointed. The patch adds
> 150 lines of dubiously-correct code in order to save ... uh, well,
Just for my study, could you tell me why you think that the code is
"dubiously-correct"?
> Considering that all the
> places that are doing this then proceed to use pull_varattnos to add on
> attnos from the restriction clauses, it seems like using pull_varattnos
> on the reltargetlist isn't such a bad thing after all.
I agree with you on that point.
> So I'm inclined to reject this. It seemed like a good idea in the
> abstract, but the concrete result isn't very attractive, and doesn't
> seem like an improvement over what we have.
Okay. I'll withdraw the patch.
Thank you for taking the time to review the patch!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-08-27 02:00:56 | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-08-27 01:45:34 | Similar to csvlog but not really, json logs? |