On 23 June 2014 12:06, David Rowley <dgrow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It's not clear to me where you get the term "sortclause" from. This is >> either the groupclause or distinctclause, but in the test cases you >> provide this shows this has nothing at all to do with sorting since >> there is neither an order by or a sorted aggregate anywhere near those >> queries. Can we think of a better name that won't confuse us in the >> future? >> > > I probably got the word "sort" from the function targetIsInSortList, which > expects a list of SortGroupClause. I've renamed the function to > sortlist_is_unique_on_restrictinfo() and renamed the sortclause parameter to > sortlist. Hopefully will reduce confusion about it being an ORDER BY clause > a bit more. I think sortgroupclauselist might be just a bit too long. What > do you think?
OK, perhaps I should be clearer. The word "sort" here seems completely misplaced and we should be using a more accurately descriptive term. It's slightly more than editing to rename things like that, so I'd prefer you cam up with a better name. Did you comment on the transitive closure question? Should we add a test for that, whether or not it works yet? Other than that it looks pretty good to commit, so I'll wait a week for other objections then commit. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
