On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 7:02 AM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On 6/14/24 19:00, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > This patch could use some polishing, but I'd like to first hear some
> > feedback on general design.
> Thanks for your time and efforts. I have skimmed through the code—there
> is a minor fix in the attachment.
> First and foremost, I think this approach can survive.
> But generally, I'm not happy with manipulations over a restrictinfo clause:
> 1. While doing that, we should remember the fields of the RestrictInfo
> clause. It may need to be changed, too, or it can require such a change
> in the future if someone adds new logic.
> 2. We should remember the link to the RestrictInfo: see how the caller
> of the distribute_restrictinfo_to_rels routine manipulates its fields
> right after the distribution.
> 3. Remember caches and cached decisions inside the RestrictInfo
> structure: replacing the clause should we change these fields too?
>
> These were the key reasons why we shifted the code to the earlier stages
> in the previous incarnation. So, going this way we should recheck all
> the fields of this structure and analyse how the transformation can
> [potentially] affect their values.
I see your points. Making this at the stage of restrictinfos seems
harder, and there are open questions in the patch.
I'd like to hear how Tom feels about this. Is this the right
direction, or should we try another way?
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase