Richard Guo <guofengli...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 6:34 PM David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The attached is roughly what I had in mind. I've not taken the time
>> to see what comments need to be updated, so the attached aims only to
>> assist discussion.
> I like this idea.
I haven't studied the underlying problem yet, so I'm not quite
buying into whether we need this struct at all ... but assuming
we do, I feel like "PlannerContext" is a pretty poor name.
There's basically nothing to distinguish it from "PlannerInfo",
not to mention that readers would likely assume it's a memory
context of some sort.
Perhaps "SubqueryContext" or the like would be better? It
still has the conflict with memory contexts though.
regards, tom lane
