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 |
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 |