By project convention, these names should include "P" when dealing with a
pointer type; that is, if the result of a GETARG macro is of type FOO *,
it should be called PG_GETARG_FOO_P not just PG_GETARG_FOO. Some newer
types such as JSONB and ranges had not followed the convention, and a
number of contrib modules hadn't gotten that memo either. Rename the
offending macros to improve consistency.
In passing, fix a few places that thought PG_DETOAST_DATUM() returns
a Datum; it does not, it returns "struct varlena *". Applying
DatumGetPointer to that happens not to cause any bad effects today,
but it's formally wrong. Also, adjust an ltree macro that was designed
without any thought for what pgindent would do with it.
This is all cosmetic and shouldn't have any impact on generated code.
Mark Dilger, some further tweaks by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/EA5676F4-766F-4F38-8348-ECC7DB427C6A@gmail.com
Don't move parenthesized lines to the left, even if that means they
flow past the right margin.
By default, BSD indent lines up statement continuation lines that are
within parentheses so that they start just to the right of the preceding
left parenthesis. However, traditionally, if that resulted in the
continuation line extending to the right of the desired right margin,
then indent would push it left just far enough to not overrun the margin,
if it could do so without making the continuation line start to the left of
the current statement indent. That makes for a weird mix of indentations
unless one has been completely rigid about never violating the 80-column
limit.
This behavior has been pretty universally panned by Postgres developers.
Hence, disable it with indent's new -lpl switch, so that parenthesized
lines are always lined up with the preceding left paren.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments
to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments
following #endif to not obey the general rule.
Commit e3860ffa4d wasn't actually using
the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that
tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of
code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be
moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's
code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops
in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working
in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the
net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed
one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves
more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such
cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after
the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after.
Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same
as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else.
That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage
from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
If ANALYZE found no repeated non-null entries in its sample, it set the
column's stadistinct value to -1.0, intending to indicate that the entries
are all distinct. But what this value actually means is that the number
of distinct values is 100% of the table's rowcount, and thus it was
overestimating the number of distinct values by however many nulls there
are. This could lead to very poor selectivity estimates, as for example
in a recent report from Andreas Joseph Krogh. We should discount the
stadistinct value by whatever we've estimated the nulls fraction to be.
(That is what will happen if we choose to use a negative stadistinct for
a column that does have repeated entries, so this code path was just
inconsistent.)
In addition to fixing the stadistinct entries stored by several different
ANALYZE code paths, adjust the logic where get_variable_numdistinct()
forces an "all distinct" estimate on the basis of finding a relevant unique
index. Unique indexes don't reject nulls, so there's no reason to assume
that the null fraction doesn't apply.
Back-patch to all supported branches. Back-patching is a bit of a judgment
call, but this problem seems to affect only a few users (else we'd have
identified it long ago), and it's bad enough when it does happen that
destabilizing plan choices in a worse direction seems unlikely.
Patch by me, with documentation wording suggested by Dean Rasheed
Report: <VisenaEmail.26.df42f82acae38a58.156463942b8@tc7-visena>
Discussion: <16143.1470350371@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Most other range operations seem to work all right on domains,
but this one not so much, at least not since commit 918eee0c.
Per bug #8684 from Brett Neumeier.
The estimates are based on the existing lower bound histogram, and a new
histogram of range lengths.
Bump catversion, because the range length histogram now needs to be present
in statistic slot kind 6, or you get an error on @> and <@ queries. (A
re-ANALYZE would be enough to fix that, though)
Alexander Korotkov, with some refactoring by me.
This enables selectivity estimation of the <<, >>, &<, &> and && operators,
as well as the normal inequality operators: <, <=, >=, >. "range @> element"
is also supported, but the range-variant @> and <@ operators are not,
because they cannot be sensibly estimated with lower and upper bound
histograms alone. We would need to make some assumption about the lengths of
the ranges for that. Alexander's patch included a separate histogram of
lengths for that, but I left that out of the patch for simplicity. Hopefully
that will be added as a followup patch.
The fraction of empty ranges is also calculated and used in estimation.
Alexander Korotkov, heavily modified by me.
Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas