Re: [PATCHES] WIP: executor_hook for pg_stat_statements
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] WIP: executor_hook for pg_stat_statements |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 10029.1215442263@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] WIP: executor_hook for pg_stat_statements (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCHES] WIP: executor_hook for pg_stat_statements
Re: [PATCHES] WIP: executor_hook for pg_stat_statements |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 11:03 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: >> One issue is "tag" field. The type is now uint32. It's enough in my plugin, >> but if some people need to add more complex structures in PlannedStmt, >> Node type would be better rather than uint32. Which is better? > I was imagining that tag was just an index to another data structure, > but probably better if its a pointer. I don't want the tag there at all, much less converted to a pointer. What would the semantics be of copying the node, and why? Please justify why you must have this and can't do what you want some other way. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: