Re: Defer selection of asynchronous subplans until the executor initialization stage
От | Etsuro Fujita |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Defer selection of asynchronous subplans until the executor initialization stage |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPmGK17uV9BoLnAmh845zcFpMEOEEaoqoYd3noC2WEkqkvvKHg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Defer selection of asynchronous subplans until the executor initialization stage (Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Defer selection of asynchronous subplans until the executor initialization stage
Re: Defer selection of asynchronous subplans until the executor initialization stage |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 1:06 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 11:38 PM Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com> wrote: > > + WRITE_ENUM_FIELD(status, SubqueryScanStatus); > > > > Looks like the new field can be named subquerystatus - this way its purpose is clearer. > > I agree that “status” is too general. “subquerystatus” might be good, > but I’d like to propose “scanstatus” instead, because I think this > would be consistent with the naming of the RowMarkType-enum member > “markType” in PlanRowMark defined in the same file. > > > + * mark_async_capable_plan > > + * Check whether a given Path node is async-capable, and if so, mark the > > + * Plan node created from it as such. > > > > Please add comment explaining what the return value means. > > Ok, how about something like this? > > “Check whether a given Path node is async-capable, and if so, mark the > Plan node created from it as such and return true; otherwise, return > false.” I have committed the patch after modifying it as such. (I think we can improve these later, if necessary.) Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: