From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] WIP: executor_hook for pg_stat_statements |
Date: | 2008-07-07 14:51:03 |
Message-ID: | 10029.1215442263@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bernd Helmle | 2008-07-07 14:53:26 | Re: Schema-qualified statements in pg_dump output |
Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-07-07 14:41:59 | Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 v2 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-07-07 15:00:49 | Re: [HACKERS] SSL configure patch |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2008-07-07 14:33:42 | Re: [PATCHES] WITH RECURSIVE updated to CVS TIP |