Re: Oddity in tuple routing for foreign partitions

I forgot to mention that.

At Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:17:02 +0900, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote in <f894af29-345f-678b-480a-9f6e8cc314bd(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
> On 2018/04/25 4:49, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> >> <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> >>> Robert, I think this is your turf, per 3d956d9562aa. Are you looking
> >>> into it?
> >>
> >> Thanks for the ping. I just had a look over the proposed patch and I
> >> guess I don't like it very much. Temporarily modifying the range
> >> table in place and then changing it back before we return seems ugly
> >> and error-prone. I hope we can come up with a solution that doesn't
> >> involve needing to do that.
> >
> > I have done some refactoring to avoid that. See attached.
>
> +1 for getting rid of the PlannerInfo argument of the many functions in
> that code. I have long wondered if we couldn't rid of it and especially
> thought of it when reviewing this patch.

+1 from me. Thanks for making things simpler and easy to
understand. I feel the same as Amit:p

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center