From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Move a comment |
Date: | 2022-07-09 20:17:49 |
Message-ID: | 1784be53-3594-6b02-7a8a-8411e2c73e27@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On 09.07.22 17:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
>> Move a comment from the to-be-deleted section of nodes.h to where it
>> might still be useful.
>
> Hm. I'm kind of sad that we lost
>
> - /*
> - * TAGS FOR RANDOM OTHER STUFF
> - *
> - * These are objects that aren't part of parse/plan/execute node tree
> - * structures, but we give them NodeTags anyway for identification
> - * purposes (usually because they are involved in APIs where we want to
> - * pass multiple object types through the same pointer).
> - */
>
> Not quite sure where that info should be put now. Maybe nodes/README
> could get another para that explains what types of objects get
> treated as Nodes?
Yeah, I looked at that comment, too, but it seemed that the particular
node types were already adequately documented at their sites. But
nodes/README seems like a good destination in general.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-07-09 23:26:32 | pgsql: Exclude nodetags.h from headerscheck and cpluspluscheck. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-07-09 19:15:14 | pgsql: Doc: rearrange high-level commentary about node support coverage |