| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node) |
| Date: | 2014-02-26 08:03:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20140226080340.GG2921@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Shigeru Hanada (shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Perhaps he meant to separate patches based on feature-based rule. IMO
> if exposing utilities is essential for Custom Scan API in practical
> meaning, IOW to implement and maintain an extension which implements
> Custom Scan API, they should be go into the first patch. IIUC two
> contrib modules are also PoC for the API, so part-2/3 patch should
> contain only changes against contrib and its document.
That's what I was getting at, yes.
> Besides that, some typo fixing are mixed in part-2 patch. They should
> go into the part-1 patch where the typo introduced.
Agreed.
THanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2014-02-26 08:16:51 | Re: extension_control_path |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-02-26 08:02:54 | Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node) |