From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Minor comment edits in nodeGather.c |
Date: | 2015-11-25 02:31:37 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYuPXrTBEwAA_LjRGY0UGf0QUFyC8Z20z7wo5V34VdiTA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> 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. But I agree the second change is needed.
Err, even if it's NOT technically a scan.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-11-25 02:31:40 | Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-11-25 02:31:19 | Re: Minor comment edits in nodeGather.c |