From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bykov Ivan <i(dot)bykov(at)modernsys(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Query ID Calculation Fix for DISTINCT / ORDER BY and LIMIT / OFFSET |
Date: | 2025-03-14 00:27:52 |
Message-ID: | Z9N4CF2MM0RR31aD@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 07:17:20PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
>> Then we have the same problem with another Node using this Foo node
>> two times in a row, depending on how it's used by the query parsing
>> and transform:
>
> hmm, it's hard to imagine such a case being real-world and useful for
> query jumbling purposes.
Perhaps, but the code allows that be design, and people like forking
Postgres.
> Also, I think if we introduce something like
> JUMBLE_NULL() or JUMBLE_POSITION(), the author of a custom jumbling
> function should use it. This could be added in code comments somewhere, IMO.
FWIW, another idea I have on top of my mind is the addition of a
counter in JumbleState that we increment each time we enter
_jumbleNode(), then simply call JUMBLE_FIELD_SINGLE() after the
incrementation. And we can rely on this counter to be unique each
time we jumble a node..
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Euler Taveira | 2025-03-14 00:54:40 | Re: Separate GUC for replication origins |
Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-03-14 00:17:20 | Re: Query ID Calculation Fix for DISTINCT / ORDER BY and LIMIT / OFFSET |