| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Minor comment edits in nodeGather.c |
| Date: | 2015-11-25 02:43:51 |
| Message-ID: | 56552067.9050509@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015/11/25 11:31, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> While going through nodeGather.c, I noticed portions of the file header
>> comment that may have been obsoleted by recent revisions of the relevant
>> parellelism code. For example, there is a reference to PartialSeqScan node
>> which did not make it into the tree. Attached fixes it. Also, wondering if
>> the semantics of Gather node is that of Scan or more generic Plan? That is
>> to ask whether the following edit makes sense:
>>
>> * nodeGather.c
>> - * Support routines for scanning a plan via multiple workers.
>> + * Support routines for getting the result from a plan via multiple
>> + * workers.
>> *
>
> Well I think "scanning a plan" is clear enough even if it's
> technically a Scan.
Okay, ripped that out in the attached.
Thanks,
Amit
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| nodegather-comment-fix.patch | text/x-diff | 759 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2015-11-25 03:57:47 | Re: problem with msvc linker - cannot build orafce |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-11-25 02:36:02 | Re: Revisiting pg_stat_statements and IN() (Was: Re: pg_stat_statements fingerprinting logic and ArrayExpr) |