On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 5:39 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:06:17PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 8:27 AM Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:22 AM Ashutosh Bapat < > > > ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>> > > >>> [PATCH] Erase the distinctClause if the result is unique by > > >>> definition > > >> > > >> I forgot to mention this in the last round of comments. Your patch was > > >> actually removing distictClause from the Query structure. Please avoid > > >> doing that. If you remove it, you are also removing the evidence that > this > > >> Query had a DISTINCT clause in it. > > > > > > Yes, I removed it because it is the easiest way to do it. what is the > > > purpose of keeping the evidence? > > > > > > > Julien's example provides an explanation for this. The Query structure is > > serialised into a view definition. Removing distinctClause from there > means > > that the view will never try to produce unique results. > > And also I think that this approach will have a lot of other unexpected > side > effects. Isn't changing the Query going to affect pg_stat_statements > queryid > computing for instance? > Thanks, the 2 factors above are pretty valuable. so erasing the distinctClause is not reasonable, I will try another way.
