Hi Etsuro! On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp>wrote:
> Hi Alexander, > > I wrote: > > > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > > > > > resjunk means that the target is not supposed to be output by the > query. > > > > Since it's there at all, it's presumably referenced by ORDER BY or > GROUP > > > > BY or DISTINCT ON, but the meaning of the flag doesn't depend on > that. > > > > > > What you would need to do is verify that the target is resjunk and > not > > > > used in any clause besides ORDER BY. I have not read your patch, but > > > > I rather imagine that what you've got now is that the parser checks > this > > > > and sets the new flag for consumption far downstream. Why not just > make > > > > the same check in the planner? > > > > > I've created a patch using this approach. > > > > I've rebased the above patch against the latest head. Could you review > the > > patch? If you have no objection, I'd like to mark the patch "ready for > > committer". > > Sorry, I've had a cleanup of the patch. Please find attached the patch. I've checked the attached patch. It looks good for me. No objection to mark it "ready for committer". ------ With best regards, Alexander Korotkov.
