Amit-san,
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 10:22 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> Rebased over bdd9a99aac.
I did code review of 0001 and I have some suggestions. Could you check them?
1.
0001: line 418
+ * add_inherit_target_child_root() would've added only those
that are
add_inherit_target_child_root() doesn't exist now, so an above comment needs to
be modified.
2.
0001: line 508-510
In set_inherit_target_rel_pathlists():
+ /* Nothing to do if all the children were excluded. */
+ if (IS_DUMMY_REL(rel))
+ return;
These codes aren't needed or can be replaced by Assert because
set_inherit_target_rel_pathlists is only called from set_rel_pathlist which
excutes IS_DUMMY_REL(rel) before calling set_inherit_target_rel_pathlists, as
follows.
set_rel_pathlist(...)
{
...
if (IS_DUMMY_REL(rel))
{
/* We already proved the relation empty, so nothing more to do */
}
else if (rte->inh)
{
/*
* If it's a target relation, set the pathlists of children instead.
* Otherwise, we'll append the outputs of children, so process it as
* an "append relation".
*/
if (root->inherited_update && root->parse->resultRelation == rti)
{
inherited_update = true;
set_inherit_target_rel_pathlists(root, rel, rti, rte);
3.
0001: line 1919-1920
- case CONSTRAINT_EXCLUSION_ON:
- break; /* always try to
exclude */
CONSTRAINT_EXCLUSION_ON is no longer used, so should we remove it also from guc
parameters?
4.
0001:
Can we remove enum InheritanceKind which is no longer used?
I also see the patch from a perspective of separating codes from 0001 which are
not essential of Overhaul inheritance update/delete planning. Although almost
all of codes are related each other, but I found below two things can be moved
to another patch.
---
0001: line 550-608
This section seems to be just refinement of set_append_rel_size().
So can we separate this from 0001 to another patch?
---
0001: line 812-841, 940-947, 1525-1536, 1938-1947
These codes are related to removement of InheritanceKind from
relation_excluded_by_constraints(), so I think it is something like cleaning of
unneeded codes. Can we separate this to patch as
some-code-clearnups-of-0001.patch? Of course, we can do that only if removing
of these codes from 0001 would not bother success of "make check" of 0001.
I also think that what I pointed out at above 3. and 4. can also be included in
some-code-clearnups-of-0001.patch.
What do you think?
--
Yoshikazu Imai
