| From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Remove a unused argument from qual_is_pushdown_safe |
| Date: | 2022-11-28 08:12:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAMbWs4-TBmsLwjspvLKOwXPHq=0N=O1dUWrg--8GkNBrr-G9nQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 3:40 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 04:05:13PM +0800, Richard Guo wrote:
> >> I wonder if we need to revise the comment atop qual_is_pushdown_safe()
> >> too which says
> >>
> >> * rinfo is a restriction clause applying to the given subquery (whose
> RTE
> >> * has index rti in the parent query).
> >>
> >> since there is no 'given subquery' after we remove it from the params.
>
> I was thinking about this point, and it seems to me that we could just
> do s/the given subquery/a subquery/. But perhaps you have a different
> view on the matter?
I think the new wording is good. Thanks for the change.
Thanks
Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-11-28 08:16:03 | RE: Avoid streaming the transaction which are skipped (in corner cases) |
| Previous Message | Ian Lawrence Barwick | 2022-11-28 07:58:03 | Re: Understanding, testing and improving our Windows filesystem code |