| 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: | 2015-11-30 18:06:02 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobpRNq9X=PTnUF6iicN2k1dqDRRVwG8cEgK=tpACs12Xw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> 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.
Committed, thanks.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-11-30 18:16:02 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-11-30 18:05:21 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |