| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API) |
| Date: | 2015-01-10 00:56:45 |
| Message-ID: | 54B078CD.90904@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/9/15, 6:54 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 1/9/15, 6:44 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>>>
>>> Yep, I had a same impression when I looked at the code first time,
>>> however, it is defined as below. Not a manner of custom-scan itself.
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * ==========
>>> * Scan nodes
>>> * ==========
>>> */
>>> typedef struct Scan
>>> {
>>> Plan plan;
>>> Index scanrelid; /* relid is index into the range table */
>>> } Scan;
>>>
>>
>> Yeah there are actually several places in the code where "relid" means index in range table and not oid of relation, it still manages to confuse me. Nothing this patch can do about that.
>
> Well, since it's confused 3 of us now... should we change it (as a separate patch)? I'm willing to do that work but don't want to waste time if it'll just be rejected.
>
> Any other examples of this I should fix too?
Sorry, to clarify... any other items besides Scan.scanrelid that I should fix?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-01-10 01:19:09 | Re: Updating copyright notices to 2015 for PGDG |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-01-10 00:54:38 | Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API) |