Re: Patch for removng unused targets

Hi Etsuro!

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>wrote:

> Hi Alexander,
>
> I wrote:
> > > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> >
> > > > resjunk means that the target is not supposed to be output by the
> query.
> > > > Since it's there at all, it's presumably referenced by ORDER BY or
> GROUP
> > > > BY or DISTINCT ON, but the meaning of the flag doesn't depend on
> that.
> >
> > > > What you would need to do is verify that the target is resjunk and
> not
> > > > used in any clause besides ORDER BY. I have not read your patch, but
> > > > I rather imagine that what you've got now is that the parser checks
> this
> > > > and sets the new flag for consumption far downstream. Why not just
> make
> > > > the same check in the planner?
> >
> > > I've created a patch using this approach.
> >
> > I've rebased the above patch against the latest head. Could you review
> the
> > patch? If you have no objection, I'd like to mark the patch "ready for
> > committer".
>
> Sorry, I've had a cleanup of the patch. Please find attached the patch.

I've checked the attached patch. It looks good for me. No objection to mark
it "ready for committer".

------
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.