Dean Rasheed writes:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 at 04:39, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, if we want to clean this up a bit rather than just doing the
>> minimum safe fix ... I spent some time why we were bothering with the
>> FLATCOPY step at all, rather than just mutating the Query* pointer.
>> I think
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 at 04:39, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Well, if we want to clean this up a bit rather than just doing the
> minimum safe fix ... I spent some time why we were bothering with the
> FLATCOPY step at all, rather than just mutating the Query* pointer.
> I think the reason is to not fail if
Dean Rasheed writes:
> Not directly related to that change ... I think it would be easier to
> follow if the CHECKFLATCOPY() was replaced with a separate Assert()
> and FLATCOPY() (I had to go and remind myself what CHECKFLATCOPY()
> did).
> Doing that would allow CHECKFLATCOPY() to be deleted,
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 at 22:44, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Commit 64919aaab made pull_up_simple_subquery set rte->subquery = NULL
> after doing the deed, so that we don't waste cycles copying a
> now-useless subquery tree around. I discovered today while
> working on another patch that if you invoke
Commit 64919aaab made pull_up_simple_subquery set rte->subquery = NULL
after doing the deed, so that we don't waste cycles copying a
now-useless subquery tree around. I discovered today while
working on another patch that if you invoke query_tree_mutator
or range_table_mutator on the whole Query
