linhongyu510 commented on PR #2559: URL: https://github.com/apache/age/pull/2559#issuecomment-6211851056
Follow-up to the review comment on the nested-AND asymmetry — the recursion-aware elision is now pushed as a subsequent commit on top of the original blocking-label fix (new head `917b68ea`). The original bug-fix diff is unchanged and still minimal. `simplify_redundant_edge_type_qual` now: - recurses into nested `AND_EXPR` groups, - deliberately stops at `OR_EXPR` / `NOT_EXPR` boundaries (crossing an OR branch would be over-elision), - uses a `changed` flag so the outer conjunction is rebuilt only when a nested child actually elides, keeping the no-op path cheap. Verification: - flat vs parenthesized EXPLAIN now produce identical `Filter` output, - `pg_regress expr` green on PG18, - reverting the C change makes `expr` fail (reverse proof). Could you take another look? Happy to adjust the recursion boundary or split commits if preferred. --- 针对上一轮 review 提到的嵌套 AND 不对称问题，递归版本的冗余 edge type() 消除已作为后续提交推到原 blocking-label 修复之上（新 head `917b68ea`）。原 bug-fix diff 未改动，仍保持最小。逻辑会递归进入嵌套 `AND_EXPR`，在 `OR_EXPR`/`NOT_EXPR` 边界停止；用 `changed` 标志仅在嵌套子句真的消除时才重建外层 AND。flat 与括号嵌套两种写法的 EXPLAIN 现在 Filter 一致，PG18 上 `pg_regress expr` 全绿，回退 C 改动会让 expr 失败（反向验证）。麻烦再 review 一次，谢谢。 Implementation and verification were AI-assisted; I reviewed the AST walk, the diff, and the regression output before pushing.（实现与验证有 AI 辅助，我复核后再推送。） -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
