On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 4:59 PM Peter Smith <
smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 9:40 AM Greg Nancarrow <
gregn4422@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 2:08 PM
houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> > <
houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > There was a miss in the posted patch which didn't initialize the parameter in
> > > RelationBuildPublicationDesc, sorry for that. Attach the correct patch this time.
> > >
> >
> > A few comments for the v71-0001 patch:
> ...
> > (2) check_simple_rowfilter_expr_walker
> >
> > In the function header:
> > (i) "etc" should be "etc."
> > (ii)
> > Is
> >
> > + * - (Var Op Const) Bool (Var Op Const)
> >
> > meant to be:
> >
> > + * - (Var Op Const) Logical-Op (Var Op Const)
> >
> > ?
> >
> > It's not clear what "Bool" means here.
>
> The comment is only intended as a generic example of the kinds of
> acceptable expression format.
>
> The names in the comment used are roughly equivalent to the Node* tag names.
>
> This particular example is for an expression with AND/OR/NOT, which is
> handled by a BoolExpr.
>
> There is no such animal as LogicalOp, so rather than change like your
> suggestion I feel if this comment is going to change then it would be
> better to change to be "boolop" (because the BoolExpr struct has a
> boolop member). e.g.
>
> BEFORE
> + * - (Var Op Const) Bool (Var Op Const)
> AFTER
> + * - (Var Op Const) boolop (Var Op Const)
>
(PostgreSQL docs don't refer to AND/OR etc. as boolean operators)
Perhaps, to make it clear, the change for the example compound expression could simply be:
+ * - (Var Op Const) AND/OR (Var Op Const)
or at least say something like " - where boolop is AND/OR".
Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia