Re: Alias of VALUES RTE in explain plan

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>, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Alias of VALUES RTE in explain plan
Date: 2024-10-29 05:32:02
Message-ID: CAA9OW9es7bfoZHA=g87=STGz_EXGqrobDVgqgzy9Kp+znZ_qDw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 8:16 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> 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 */

This seems ok to me.

> if that helps any.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2024-10-29 05:49:38 RE: Pgoutput not capturing the generated columns
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2024-10-29 05:06:00 Re: protocol-level wait-for-LSN