Re: Minor comment edits in nodeGather.c

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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)