Re: Minor comment update in setrefs.c

From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Minor comment update in setrefs.c
Date: 2016-01-15 10:36:00
Message-ID: 5698CB90.3060608@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015/12/11 2:21, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> Attached is a small patch to adjust a comment in setrefs.c; in
>> set_foreignscan_references, fdw_recheck_quals also gets adjusted to
>> reference foreign scan tuple, in case of a foreign join, so I added
>> "etc.", to a comment there, as the comment in case of a simple foreign
>> table scan.

> Doesn't apply any more. I suppose we could sync up the similar
> comments in set_customscan_references() too. But to be honest I'm not
> sure this is adding any clarity. "etc." may not be the least
> informative thing you can put in a comment, but it's pretty close.

The point in the previous patch was to update the list of expressions to
be adjusted for the case of scanrelid=0 like that for the case of
scanrelid>0 case in set_foreignscan_references. So, I'd like to propose
to add *fdw_recheck_quals* to both lists, then. Updated patch attached.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

Attachment Content-Type Size
setrefs-comment-v2.patch application/x-patch 1.3 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2016-01-15 10:48:13 Re: Declarative partitioning
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-01-15 10:34:57 Re: Insert values() per-statement overhead