Result nodes now include an RTI set, which is only non-NULL when they
have no subplan, and is taken from the relid set of the RelOptInfo that
the Result is generating. ExplainPreScanNode now takes notice of these
RTIs, which means that a few things get schema-qualified in the
regression tests that previously did not. This makes the output more
consistent between cases where some part of the plan tree is replaced by
a Result node and those where this does not happen.
Likewise, pg_overexplain's EXPLAIN (RANGE_TABLE) now displays the RTIs
stored in a Result node just as it already does for other RTI-bearing
node types.
Result nodes also now include a result_reason, which tells us something
about why the Result node was inserted. Using that information, EXPLAIN
now emits, where relevant, a "Replaces" line describing the origin of
a Result node.
The purpose of these changes is to allow code that inspects a Plan
tree to understand the origin of Result nodes that appear therein.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYeUZePZWLsSO+1FAN7UPePT_RMEZBKkqYBJVCF1s60=w@mail.gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Alexandra Wang <alexandra.wang.oss@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Reviewed-by: Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com>
Make sure that function declarations use names that exactly match the
corresponding names from function definitions in a few places. These
inconsistencies were all introduced during Postgres 18 development.
This commit was written with help from clang-tidy, by mechanically
applying the same rules as similar clean-up commits (the earliest such
commit was commit 035ce1fe).
There's a fair amount of information in the Plan and PlanState trees
that isn't printed by any existing EXPLAIN option. This means that,
when working on the planner, it's often necessary to rely on facilities
such as debug_print_plan, which produce excessively voluminous
output. Hence, use the new EXPLAIN extension facilities to implement
EXPLAIN (DEBUG) and EXPLAIN (RANGE_TABLE) as extensions to the core
EXPLAIN facility.
A great deal more could be done here, and the specific choices about
what to print and how are definitely arguable, but this is at least
a starting point for discussion and a jumping-off point for possible
future improvements.
Reviewed-by: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Reviweed-by: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> (who didn't like it)
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZfvQUBWQ2P8iO30jywhfEAKyNzMZSR+uc2xr9PZBw6eQ@mail.gmail.com
