On 21.03.24 10:51, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
At this point, I'm not too stressed about pressing forward with these
last two patches. We can look at them again perhaps if we make
progress
on a more compact node output format. When I started this thread, I
had
a lot of
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 5:29 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 20.02.24 08:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 18.02.24 00:06, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> >> I'm not sure that the cleanup which is done when changing a RTE's
> >> rtekind is also complete enough for this purpose.
> >> Things like
On 20.02.24 08:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 18.02.24 00:06, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
I'm not sure that the cleanup which is done when changing a RTE's
rtekind is also complete enough for this purpose.
Things like inline_cte_walker change the node->rtekind, which could
leave residual junk
On 18.02.24 00:06, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
I'm not sure that the cleanup which is done when changing a RTE's
rtekind is also complete enough for this purpose.
Things like inline_cte_walker change the node->rtekind, which could
leave residual junk data in fields that are currently dropped
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 21:36, Paul Jungwirth
wrote:
>
> On 1/15/24 02:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > In this updated patch set, I have also added the treatment of the
> > Constraint type. (I also noted
> > that the manual read/write functions for the Constraint type are
> > out-of-sync again,
On 1/15/24 02:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
In this updated patch set, I have also added the treatment of the Constraint type. (I also noted
that the manual read/write functions for the Constraint type are out-of-sync again, so simplifying
this would be really helpful.) I have also added commit
On 06.12.23 21:02, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I have been looking into what it would take to get rid of the
custom_read_write and custom_query_jumble for the RangeTblEntry node
type. This is one of the larger and more complex exceptions left.
(Similar considerations would also apply to the
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 at 21:02, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> I have been looking into what it would take to get rid of the
> custom_read_write and custom_query_jumble for the RangeTblEntry node
> type. This is one of the larger and more complex exceptions left.
> [...]
> Now one could probably
I have been looking into what it would take to get rid of the
custom_read_write and custom_query_jumble for the RangeTblEntry node
type. This is one of the larger and more complex exceptions left.
(Similar considerations would also apply to the Constraint node type.)
Allegedly, only certain
