Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API)
От | Kohei KaiGai |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CADyhKSXtv1F6kPsakZuCv2Kti1sMAuPf3nqEhEUWMJ4eqZuB2g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API) (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2015-01-10 9:56 GMT+09:00 Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>: > On 1/9/15, 6:54 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >> >> On 1/9/15, 6:44 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Yep, I had a same impression when I looked at the code first time, >>>> however, it is defined as below. Not a manner of custom-scan itself. >>>> >>>> /* >>>> * ========== >>>> * Scan nodes >>>> * ========== >>>> */ >>>> typedef struct Scan >>>> { >>>> Plan plan; >>>> Index scanrelid; /* relid is index into the range table >>>> */ >>>> } Scan; >>>> >>> >>> Yeah there are actually several places in the code where "relid" means >>> index in range table and not oid of relation, it still manages to confuse >>> me. Nothing this patch can do about that. >> >> >> Well, since it's confused 3 of us now... should we change it (as a >> separate patch)? I'm willing to do that work but don't want to waste time if >> it'll just be rejected. >> >> Any other examples of this I should fix too? > > > Sorry, to clarify... any other items besides Scan.scanrelid that I should > fix? > This naming is a little bit confusing, however, I don't think it "should" be changed because this structure has been used for a long time, so reworking will prevent back-patching when we find bugs around "scanrelid". Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: