Re: magical eref alias names

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Oh, I agree, but I don't see why anyone would care whether rel names
> are unique across different queries. When I mentioned global
> uniqueness, I meant unique within a query, like what
> set_rtable_names() does after the fact.

Okay, but then we still have the problem of how to ensure that in
a query that has inline'd some views.  I think solving the sort of
I-want-to-reference-this problem you describe would require
that we unique-ify the aliases in the rewriter, just after it
finishes incorporating any views.  We could do that, but it seems
like a lot of cycles to expend on something that would be pointless
in the typical case where nobody ever looks at the aliases later.

> Now, I'm firmly convinced that this is a real problem and worth
> solving, but let me be clear that I don't think the solution is
> anywhere on this thread, nor do I think that it is simple.

Agreed.

> My original
> proposal of getting rid of system-generated fake names isn't
> necessary, because you very helpfully pointed out that I can look at
> whether RTE->alias->aliasname exists to figure that out.

Actually, I noticed that we are failing to honor that in the places
where we inject "*SELECT*" and "*SELECT* %d" names, because that
code puts those names into RTE->alias not only RTE->eref.
I experimented with the attached patch to not do that anymore,
which is sort of a subset of what you did but just focused on
not lying about what's generated versus user-written.  We could
alternatively keep the current generated names by extending
addRangeTableEntryForSubquery's API so that alias and generated eref
are passed separately.  (I didn't look to see if anyplace else
is messing up this distinction similarly.)

			regards, tom lane