On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 10:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 11:03 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: > >> One issue is "tag" field. The type is now uint32. It's enough in my plugin, > >> but if some people need to add more complex structures in PlannedStmt, > >> Node type would be better rather than uint32. Which is better? > > > I was imagining that tag was just an index to another data structure, > > but probably better if its a pointer. > > I don't want the tag there at all, much less converted to a pointer. > What would the semantics be of copying the node, and why? > > Please justify why you must have this and can't do what you want some > other way.
Agreed. If we have plugins for planner and executor we should be able to pass information around in the background. We have mechanisms for two plugins to rendezvous, so we can use that if they're completely separate plugins. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
