planner: refactor infoschema predicate extractors #55502
Conversation
ti-chi-bot
bot
added
do-not-merge/needs-linked-issue
do-not-merge/needs-tests-checked
release-note-none
|
Hi @tangenta. Thanks for your PR. PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
ti-chi-bot
bot
removed
do-not-merge/needs-linked-issue
do-not-merge/needs-tests-checked
labels
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #55502 +/- ##
================================================
+ Coverage 72.8872% 75.1325% +2.2452%
================================================
Files 1576 1578 +2
Lines 440796 447705 +6909
================================================
+ Hits 321284 336372 +15088
+ Misses 99789 91058 -8731
- Partials 19723 20275 +552
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
pkg/executor/infoschema_reader.go
Outdated
| @@ -1748,10 +1741,10 @@ func (e *memtableRetriever) setDataForMetricTables() { | |||
| e.rows = rows | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func keyColumnUsageInTable(schema model.CIStr, table *model.TableInfo, extractor *plannercore.InfoSchemaKeyColumnUsageExtractor) [][]types.Datum { | |||
| func keyColumnUsageInTable(schema model.CIStr, table *model.TableInfo, ex *plannercore.InfoSchemaKeyColumnUsageExtractor) [][]types.Datum { | |||
| var rows [][]types.Datum | |||
| if table.PKIsHandle { | |||
| @@ -1792,7 +1783,7 @@ func keyColumnUsageInTable(schema model.CIStr, table *model.TableInfo, extractor | |||
| continue | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if extractor != nil && extractor.Filter("constraint_name", filterIdxName) { | |||
| if !ex.HasConstraint(filterIdxName) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This makes no difference.
People forge to write the extractor.Filter( ... they can also forget to write HasXXX?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just trying to avoid using string literal here
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: hawkingrei, tiancaiamao The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
ti-chi-bot
bot
added
approved
lgtm
and removed
needs-1-more-lgtm
[LGTM Timeline notifier]Timeline:
|
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: ref #50305
Problem Summary:
Previously, we have a few usages like
ex.Filter("partition_name", pi.Name.L)which is easy to misuse.What changed and how does it work?
HasXXXmethod for each extractors, removeFilters.ListSchemasAndTablestoInfoSchemaBaseExtractor.Check List
Tests
Side effects
Documentation
Release note
Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.