> On Dec 29, 2025, at 06:56, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I wrote:
>> I was amused to notice that the postgres_fdw.out change made in my
>> patch reverts one made in aa86129e1 (which also affected semijoin
>> costing).  So we've had trouble before with that test case being
>> fundamentally unstable.  I wonder if we shouldn't do something to try
>> to stabilize it?  I see that the test immediately before this one
>> forces the matter by turning off enable_sort (which'd affect only
>> the local side not the remote).  That's a hack all right but maybe
>> we should extend it to this test.
> 
> Here's a v2 patchset that splits that out as a separate change for
> clarity's sake.  I also spent a bit of effort on commit log messages,
> including researching the git history.
> 
> regards, tom lane
> 

Just a few small comments on v2:

1 - 0001
```
-SET enable_hashjoin TO off;
+-- These next tests require choosing between remote and local sort, which is
+-- a coin flip so long as cost_sort() gives the same results on both sides.
+-- To stabilize the expected plans, disable sorting locally.
SET enable_sort TO off;
-- subquery using stable function (can't be sent to remote)
+SET enable_hashjoin TO off;  -- this one needs even more help to be stable
```

This is not a concern, just curious why switch the setting order of 
enable_hashjoin and enable_sort?

2 - 0002
```
+               else if (get_attstatsslot(&sslot, vardata.statsTuple,
+                                                                 
STATISTIC_KIND_HISTOGRAM, InvalidOid,
+                                                                 0))
+               {
+                       /*
+                        * If there are no recorded MCVs, but we do have a 
histogram, then
+                        * assume that ANALYZE determined that the column is 
unique.
+                        */
+                       if (vardata.rel && vardata.rel->rows > 0)
+                               *mcv_freq = 1.0 / vardata.rel->rows;
+                       free_attstatsslot(&sslot);
+               }
```

As flag 0 is passed to get_attstatsslot(), free_attstatsslot() is not needed. 
The function comment of get_attstatsslot states about that:
```
* Passing flags=0 can be useful to quickly check if the requested slot type
* exists. In this case no arrays are extracted, so free_attstatsslot need
* not be called.
```

3 - In funciton estimate_hash_bucket_stats(), when mcv_freq is initialized:
```
/* Look up the frequency of the most common value, if available */
*mcv_freq = 0.0;
```

Maybe worth adding a short comment like “0.0 doesn’t mean zero frequency, 
instead 0.0 means no data or unknown frequency”, which might help code readers 
to quickly understand the logic.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/






Reply via email to