RHINENG-30670: remove multi IN-list condition

[MichaelMraka]

PostgreSQL 17 introduced optimizer changes, including how IN-lists are processed with btree indexes. This seems to cause OOMkill during BIND phase (query planning/parameter binding), a single connection's memory consumption increases to approximately 2.6 GB.

Secure Coding Practices Checklist GitHub Link

• https://github.com/RedHatInsights/secure-coding-checklist

Secure Coding Checklist

• Input Validation
• Output Encoding
• Authentication and Password Management
• Session Management
• Access Control
• Cryptographic Practices
• Error Handling and Logging
• Data Protection
• Communication Security
• System Configuration
• Database Security
• File Management
• Memory Management
• General Coding Practices

Summary by Sourcery

Replace multi-NEVRA database queries with individual package lookups to avoid PostgreSQL 17 optimizer memory issues.

Bug Fixes:

• Prevent PostgreSQL planning-time memory exhaustion by removing multi-value IN-list package lookups.

Enhancements:

• Simplify NEVRA batch lookup handling while preserving invalid and missing package reporting.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's guide (collapsed on small PRs)

Reviewer's Guide

Updates bulk NEVRA package-cache reads to perform individual equality-based lookups instead of constructing a multi-column IN-list, mitigating PostgreSQL 17 OOM risk during query planning while preserving found and missing package tracking.

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Replace the single multi-column IN-list lookup with per-NEVRA database queries to avoid PostgreSQL 17 planning-time memory growth.	Parse each NEVRA and skip invalid inputs with a warning. Query each valid name/EVRA pair using equality predicates. Append found packages directly and record unfound valid NEVRAs as missing. Remove aggregate result reconstruction and related formatting/logging imports.	evaluator/package_cache.go

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey - I've found 2 issues

Prompt for AI Agents

Please address the comments from this code review:

## Individual Comments

### Comment 1
<location path="evaluator/package_cache.go" line_range="363-375" />
<code_context>
 	for _, nevraString := range nevraStrings {
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**issue (performance):** ReadByNevras now performs one database transaction and query for every valid NEVRA instead of one batch query, so a request containing a large list executes N sequential queries and incurs N query-planning/round-trip costs.

**Triggers:** When callers pass a large number of cache misses in one request.

**Suggested fix:** Use bounded batching or a temporary/table-valued input strategy that avoids PostgreSQL's pathological multi-column IN-list planning without issuing one transaction per NEVRA.
</issue_to_address>

### Comment 2
<location path="evaluator/package_cache.go" line_range="363-375" />
<code_context>
 	for _, nevraString := range nevraStrings {
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**issue (bug_risk):** ReadByNevras appends a result for every input occurrence, so duplicate valid NEVRA strings produce duplicate PackageCacheMetadata entries; the previous implementation deduplicated inputs through the parsed map before querying and returned each database package once.

**Triggers:** When the input slice contains duplicate valid NEVRA strings.

**Suggested fix:** Deduplicate parsed NEVRAs before querying, or track returned package identities and append each package only once.
</issue_to_address>

Sourcery assessment

Approval pending. 2 findings to address first.

Blocking findings: evaluator/package_cache.go:375, evaluator/package_cache.go:375

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 85.71429% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 58.99%. Comparing base (0c15032) to head (b92ff4e).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
evaluator/package_cache.go	85.71%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2336      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   59.06%   58.99%   -0.08%     
==========================================
  Files         150      150              
  Lines        9615     9603      -12     
==========================================
- Hits         5679     5665      -14     
- Misses       3342     3346       +4     
+ Partials      594      592       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	58.99% <85.71%> (-0.08%)	⬇️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.