Re: Add expressions to pg_restore_extended_stats()

>
> v5-0001 still requires a lot of changes at quick glance, as of:
> - Some diffs not required in some comment blocks.
>

Kept the s/stxdexprs/stxdexpr, as that is the correct column name, the
other changes are reverted.


> - Regression test diffs show up for cases where WARNING messages are
> changed, but should not.  See for example the MCV checks.
>

reverted.


> - A couple of newly-introduced error strings use wordings that are not
> project-style, as of the "malformed expressions", there is also a

"malformed expr expression".
>

Updated all error messages. I tried to add in expr/name location via the
context stack, but those callback are only called for ERRORs and higher.
So, I did what I could with errhint()s.


> +        * #include "catalog/pg_collation_d.h" if (typid == TSVECTOROID)
> stacoll =
> +        * DEFAULT_COLLATION_OID;
>

We did need to do this, and it has been implemented, along with a new test
on a new statistics object which has a to_tsvector(text_column) expression
in it.


> +        *
> +        * The multirange step-down may also need to happen here too.
> +        */
>

Multirange types in expressions generate exactly 2
stakinds: STATISTIC_KIND_RANGE_LENGTH_HISTOGRAM (6)
and STATISTIC_KIND_BOUNDS_HISTOGRAM (7), neither of which are exposed by
pg_stats_ext_exprs, so they can't be imported, so at present there is
nothing to test and we can skip the multirange step-down for now.
Inspecting the stavalues1 and stavalues2 values in pg_statistic_ext_data
gives me the impression that we don't need the step-down, as the values
appear to be regular range types, and the exiting function to get the
element type should suffice.

We should probably modify the view to include these new-ish statistic
kinds, but that's for another patch.


> Now that we have an agreement about the format of the input data and
> how it maps with the assumptions of the stats computations in ANALYZE,
> the hardest part is IMO done.  However, could you clean up things?
> This patch is not really in an acceptable shape: it has a bunch of
> avoidable errors and it requires a lot of tweaks before even being
> looked at more closely.


Moving to the found[] and vals[] arrays cleans up the logic a lot, I think,
which is all the more important now that we keep building the expressions
after components of that statistic fail.