David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> The part I wouldn't mind another set of eyes on is the ruleutils.c
> changes.
Um, sorry for not getting to this sooner.
What I had in mind was to revert 1cc29fe7c's ruleutils changes
entirely, so that ruleutils deals only in Plans not PlanStates.
Perhaps we've grown some code since then that really needs the
PlanStates, but what is that, and could we do it some other way?
I'm not thrilled with passing both of these around, especially
if the PlanState sometimes isn't there, meaning that no code in
ruleutils could safely assume it's there anyway.
regards, tom lane
