Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API

From: Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Jim Mlodgenski" <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API
Date: 2014-07-18 01:28:42
Message-ID: 9A28C8860F777E439AA12E8AEA7694F8FBFAC6@BPXM15GP.gisp.nec.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I haven't followed this at all, but I just skimmed over it and noticed
> > the CustomPlanMarkPos thingy; apologies if this has been discussed
> > before. It seems a bit odd to me; why isn't it sufficient to have a
> > boolean flag in regular CustomPlan to indicate that it supports
> > mark/restore?
>
> Yeah, I thought that was pretty bogus too, but it's well down the list of
> issues that were there last time I looked at this ...
>
IIRC, CustomPlanMarkPos was suggested to keep the interface of
ExecSupportsMarkRestore() that takes plannode tag to determine
whether it support Mark/Restore.
As my original proposition did, it seems to me a flag field in
CustomPlan structure is straightforward, if we don't hesitate to
change ExecSupportsMarkRestore().

Thanks,
--
NEC OSS Promotion Center / PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-07-18 02:10:48 Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT
Previous Message Kouhei Kaigai 2014-07-18 01:24:15 Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API