Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqSYK4PBxhE3HdQqhmj5BZDu_izL5HG8U_JKM-ND2k8hXQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote: > On 3/17/16 9:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> I think that >> there are an awful lot of cases where extension authors haven't been >> able to quite do what they want to do without core changes because >> they couldn't get control in quite the right place; or they could do >> it but they had to cut-and-paste a lot of code. > > FWIW, I've certainly run into this at least once, maybe twice. The case I > can think of offhand is doing function resolution with variant. I don't > remember the details anymore, but my recollection is that to get what I > needed I would have needed to copy huge swaths of the rewrite code. Amen, I have been doing that a couple of days ago with some elog stuff. -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: