Re: Removing unneeded self joins

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>

From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>, Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark.cfm@gmail.com>, Michał Kłeczek <michal@kleczek.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2024-02-24T05:12:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Remove GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE from enable_self_join_elimination

  2. Put enable_self_join_elimination into postgresql.conf.sample

  3. Get rid of ojrelid local variable in remove_rel_from_query()

  4. Implement Self-Join Elimination

  5. Revert: Remove useless self-joins

  6. Replace lateral references to removed rels in subqueries

  7. Replace relids in lateral subquery parse tree during SJE

  8. Forbid SJE with result relation

  9. Fix misuse of RelOptInfo.unique_for_rels cache by SJE

  10. Replace the relid in some missing fields during SJE

  11. Revert 56-bit relfilenode change and follow-up commits.

  12. Stabilize timetz test across DST transitions.

  13. Speed up finding EquivalenceClasses for a given set of rels

  14. Fix mark-and-restore-skipping test case to not be a self-join.

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 12:36:59AM +0200, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:51 AM Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > On 21/2/2024 14:26, Richard Guo wrote:
> > > I think the right fix for these issues is to introduce a new element
> > > 'sublevels_up' in ReplaceVarnoContext, and enhance replace_varno_walker
> > > to 1) recurse into subselects with sublevels_up increased, and 2)
> > > perform the replacement only when varlevelsup is equal to sublevels_up.
> > This code looks good. No idea how we have lost it before.
> 
> Thanks to Richard for the patch and to Andrei for review.  I also find
> code looking good.  Pushed with minor edits from me.

I feel this, commit 466979e, misses a few of our project standards:

- The patch makes many non-whitespace changes to existing test queries.  This
  makes it hard to review the consequences of the non-test part of the patch.
  Did you minimize such edits?  Of course, not every such edit is avoidable.

- The commit message doesn't convey whether this is refactoring or is a bug
  fix.  This makes it hard to write release notes, among other things.  From
  this mailing list thread, it gather it's a bug fix in 489072ab7a, hence
  v17-specific.  The commit message for 489072ab7a is also silent about that
  commit's status as refactoring or as a bug fix.

- Normally, I could answer the previous question by reading the test case
  diffs.  However, in addition to the first point about non-whitespace
  changes, the first three join.sql patch hunks just change whitespace.
  Worse, since they move line breaks, "git diff -w" doesn't filter them out.

To what extent are those community standards vs. points of individual
committer preference?  Please tell me where I'm wrong here.