From: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Making the subquery alias optional in the FROM clause |
Date: | 2022-07-09 13:53:30 |
Message-ID: | CALNJ-vRERENLhF0aKRX5RLHuk1JwYshFeXQB=wXpDxgHmicXXg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 5:18 AM Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 at 12:24, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > It seems the code would be more readable if you keep the assignment in
> else block below:
> >
> > + else if (rte->rtekind == RTE_SUBQUERY ||
> > + rte->rtekind == RTE_VALUES)
> > continue;
> > - rtename = rte->join_using_alias->aliasname;
> > }
> > - else
> > - rtename = rte->eref->aliasname;
> >
> > because rtename would be assigned in the `rte->rtekind == RTE_JOIN` case.
> >
>
> But then it would need 2 else blocks, one inside the rte->alias ==
> NULL block, for when rtekind is not RTE_JOIN, RTE_SUBQUERY or
> RTE_VALUES, and another after the block, for when rte->alias != NULL.
> I find it more readable this way.
>
> Regards,
> Dean
>
Hi, Dean:
Thanks for the explanation.
I should have looked closer :-)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-07-09 14:37:22 | Re: automatically generating node support functions |
Previous Message | Graham Leggett | 2022-07-09 13:49:34 | Re: [PATCH] Log details for client certificate failures |