BE-424: HashQL: Add serialization safety checks for opaque types in Postgres placement

[indietyp]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

This PR enhances the Postgres statement placement pass to handle type serialization safety when crossing backend boundaries. It adds validation to ensure that types can be unambiguously deserialized after being serialized to JSONB format, preventing runtime errors from representational collisions in union types.

🔗 Related links

• Related to JSONB serialization safety in Postgres backend

🔍 What does this change?

• Updates bitflags dependency from version 2.10.0 to 2.11.0 across all crates
• Updates windows-sys dependency from 0.59.0 to 0.60.2 in several crates
• Adds is_type_serialization_safe method to the Supported trait for checking type serialization safety
• Introduces TypeSerializationSafety visitor that rejects types not safely deserializable from JSONB
• Implements semantic vs structural type peeling with Peel struct to handle opaque type analysis
• Enhances equality safety checks to properly handle opaque types and their representational collisions
• Adds support for string literal opaque type names in the body! macro
• Integrates serialization safety checks into statement cost analysis and block parameter transfers

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

This PR:

• does not modify any publishable blocks or libraries, or modifications do not need publishing

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

The changes in this PR:

• are internal and do not require a docs change

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

The changes in this PR:

• do not affect the execution graph

🛡 What tests cover this?

• New unit tests for type peeling (semantic vs structural)
• New equality safety tests for opaque types and their collisions
• New serialization safety tests covering union type validation
• Integration tests demonstrating statement placement behavior with unsafe types

❓ How to test this?

1. Checkout the branch
2. Run the test suite with cargo test
3. Verify that types with representational collisions (e.g., Uuid | String) are properly rejected in Postgres placement
4. Confirm that safe union types continue to receive placement costs

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Feb 26, 2026 9:40pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Feb 26, 2026 9:40pm

2 Skipped Deployments

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign	Ignored	Preview	Feb 26, 2026 9:40pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	Feb 26, 2026 9:40pm

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Changes Postgres pushdown eligibility by adding type-level JSONB round-trip safety checks (especially around unions and Opaque types), which can alter where expressions execute and impact correctness/performance if misclassified.

Overview
Tightens Postgres statement placement by requiring assigned locals and block params to be both operation-supported and JSONB serialization-safe, preventing pushdown of values whose types can’t be unambiguously deserialized after crossing the backend boundary.

Adds Supported::is_type_serialization_safe (default true) and implements it for Postgres via a new recursive TypeSerializationSafety check; refactors type “peeling” into semantic vs structural modes to preserve Opaque identity for equality-safety while still stripping it where needed (e.g., dict key validation). Updates equality-safety logic to treat mismatched Opaque comparisons as unsafe, extends the body! macro to accept string-literal opaque names, refreshes/expands tests and snapshots for the new rejection cases, and bumps lockfile deps (bitflags 2.10.0→2.11.0, windows-sys 0.59.0→0.60.2).

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit d01a01f. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[indietyp]

• BE-424: HashQL: Add serialization safety checks for opaque types in Postgres placement #8490 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 68 untouched benchmarks
🗄️ 12 archived benchmarks run¹

---

_{Comparing bm/be-424-hashql-reject-ambiguous-environment-entries-to-participate (d01a01f) with main (e957752)}

Footnotes

1. 12 benchmarks were run, but are now archived. If they were deleted in another branch, consider rebasing to remove them from the report. Instead if they were added back, click here to restore them. ↩

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: This PR hardens the Postgres statement placement pass by adding type-level JSONB serialization safety checks, preventing dispatch of values that cannot be unambiguously round-tripped across the interpreter/Postgres boundary.

Changes:

• Introduces a new Supported::is_type_serialization_safe hook and integrates it into dispatchability analysis and cost assignment.
• Adds a Postgres-specific TypeSerializationSafety recursive visitor to reject unions with JSONB representational collisions (e.g., opaque variants, struct+dict, tuple+list).
• Refactors type “peeling” into Peel with semantic vs structural modes to properly account for opaque types.
• Updates equality-safety logic to treat opaques nominally (safe only when names match) and to reject opaque-vs-non-opaque comparisons.
• Extends the body! macro to allow string-literal opaque names.
• Expands unit + snapshot test coverage for peeling, equality safety, serialization safety, and placement behavior with unsafe types.

Technical Notes: The placement pass now gates dispatch on both “can Postgres execute this op/value” and “can the value be losslessly distinguished after JSONB serialization,” reducing runtime mis-deserialization risks for union-heavy schemas.

_{🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎}

[augmentcode]

Review completed. 1 suggestions posted.

Comment augment review to trigger a new review at any time.

[github-actions]

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2002	$$27.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 227 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.353 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.58 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.57 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 104 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.658 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 338 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.627 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.950 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$24.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 147 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.484 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 178 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.922 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.960 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 77.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.361 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.586 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.362 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.289 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 36.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.565 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.72 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.497 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.566 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.152 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.733 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.25 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.228 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.556 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.011 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.009 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.15 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.681 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.393 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.282 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.174 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$3.09 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.106 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.661 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.410 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.601 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.842 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.04 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$41.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 176 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.234 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$78.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 424 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.684 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$45.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 211 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.304 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$48.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 268 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.118 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$56.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 266 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.444 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$43.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 203 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.172 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$422 \mathrm{ms} \pm 948 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.706 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$97.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 501 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.377 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$86.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 408 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.008 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$286 \mathrm{ms} \pm 594 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.224 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$16.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.056 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$16.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.090 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$16.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 77.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.059 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$16.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 70.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.10 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$18.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 86.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.421 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$15.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 80.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.333 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$15.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 87.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.646 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$15.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.989 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$16.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 83.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.074 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$23.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 166 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.157 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/block/v/1	$$31.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 263 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.538 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$31.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 310 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.009 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$30.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 316 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.608 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$31.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 303 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.883 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$31.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 262 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.605 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$31.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 282 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$31.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 345 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.358 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$31.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 247 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.019 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$31.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 282 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.74 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 57.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.039 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$89.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 505 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.159 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$144 \mathrm{ms} \pm 650 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.26 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$97.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 608 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.414 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$107 \mathrm{ms} \pm 622 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.571 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$116 \mathrm{ms} \pm 530 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.905 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$123 \mathrm{ms} \pm 621 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.011 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$88.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 660 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.732 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$118 \mathrm{ms} \pm 829 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.596 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$96.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 583 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.620 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$104 \mathrm{ms} \pm 632 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.651 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$107 \mathrm{ms} \pm 683 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.323 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$107 \mathrm{ms} \pm 676 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.420 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$133 \mathrm{ms} \pm 512 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.296 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$132 \mathrm{ms} \pm 559 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.215 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$104 \mathrm{ms} \pm 567 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.164 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$600 \mathrm{ms} \pm 841 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.370 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 98.94292% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 63.05%. Comparing base (e7770d8) to head (d01a01f).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...pass/execution/statement_placement/postgres/mod.rs	94.94%	4 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8490      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   62.70%   63.05%   +0.35%     
==========================================
  Files        1302     1302              
  Lines      131589   132908    +1319     
  Branches     5487     5509      +22     
==========================================
+ Hits        82512    83809    +1297     
- Misses      48169    48185      +16     
- Partials      908      914       +6     

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.40% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	0.00% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	40.84% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client	51.24% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	7.78% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.16% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-tower	66.80% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-wire-protocol	92.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-codec	72.76% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-api	2.86% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.34% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	27.53% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	37.86% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	47.95% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-validation	83.45% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast	87.25% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	29.69% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	82.26% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	69.13% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.11% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	92.43% <98.94%> (+0.37%)	⬆️
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.05% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.