On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I did run into a problem with my plan to call the new node type "Merge": > the planner is already using "MergePath" as the name for the Path struct > that is precursor to a MergeJoin. For the moment I'm calling the new > node type MergeAppend, but as mentioned I feel that that's a bit of a > misnomer.
On the plus side the resulting node does have a lot in common with Append nodes and a lot of places that do something special with Append nodes will have to do the same things with the new node, so having a similar name might help people remember that when they're adding their special code for Append. At the time I went back and forth on whether to have a separate node. I tried to do it and had the impression that there were a lot more places that would need to treat the two similarly than places that needed to treat the two differently. I'm curious to see how you do it cleanly. The only other name I batted around at the time was OrderedAppend which only alters the other half of the name, so no real help. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers