Re: RangeTblEntry jumble omissions

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: RangeTblEntry jumble omissions
Дата
Msg-id 963596.1708732374@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: RangeTblEntry jumble omissions  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: RangeTblEntry jumble omissions  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 04:26:53PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> - funcordinality
>> This was probably just forgotten.  It should be included because the WITH
>> ORDINALITY clause changes the query result.

> Agreed.

Seems OK.

>> - lateral
>> Also probably forgotten.  A query specifying LATERAL is clearly different
>> from one without it.

> Agreed.

Nah ... I think that LATERAL should be ignored on essentially the
same grounds on which you argue for ignoring aliases.  If it
affects the query's semantics, it's because there is a lateral
reference in the subject subquery or function, and that reference
already contributes to the query hash.  If there is no such
reference, then LATERAL is a noise word.  It doesn't help any that
LATERAL is actually optional for functions, making it certainly a
noise word there.

IIRC, the parser+planner cooperatively fix things so that the final
state of an RTE's lateral field reflects reality.  But if we are
hashing before that's happened, it's not worth all that much.

            regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tristen Raab
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Documentation: warn about two_phase when altering a subscription
Следующее
От: David Zhang
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Proposal for implementing OCSP Stapling in PostgreSQL