From: | Yasir <yasir(dot)hussain(dot)shah(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Alias of VALUES RTE in explain plan |
Date: | 2024-10-27 20:15:19 |
Message-ID: | CAA9OW9dLo34sT7xE1fA_fncs-J2e+qAC3dkCKs=zynmLQVt3qg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 1:07 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Yasir <yasir(dot)hussain(dot)shah(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 12:21 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I forgot to mention a third problem, which is that reassigning the
> >> alias during subquery pullup means it doesn't happen if subquery
> >> pullup doesn't happen.
>
> > Yes, that is by design.
>
> By design? How can you claim that's not a bug? The alias(es)
> associated with a VALUES clause surely should not vary depending
> on whether the clause includes a volatile function --- not to
> mention other unobvious reasons for flattening to happen or not.
>
By design of my solution, I was not taking it as a bug. But now, I agree
with your opinion.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2024-10-27 21:40:35 | Re: heap_inplace_lock vs. autovacuum w/ LOCKTAG_TUPLE |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-10-27 20:07:44 | Re: libedit history seems to be misbehaving / broken |