On 1/9/15, 8:51 PM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
2015-01-10 9:56 GMT+09:00 Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com>:
On 1/9/15, 6:54 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/9/15, 6:44 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
Yep, I had a same impression when I looked at the code first time,
however, it is defined as below. Not a manner of custom-scan itself.
/*
* ==========
* Scan nodes
* ==========
*/
typedef struct Scan
{
Plan plan;
Index scanrelid; /* relid is index into the range table
*/
} Scan;
Yeah there are actually several places in the code where "relid" means
index in range table and not oid of relation, it still manages to confuse
me. Nothing this patch can do about that.
Well, since it's confused 3 of us now... should we change it (as a
separate patch)? I'm willing to do that work but don't want to waste time if
it'll just be rejected.
Any other examples of this I should fix too?
Sorry, to clarify... any other items besides Scan.scanrelid that I should
fix?
This naming is a little bit confusing, however, I don't think it "should" be
changed because this structure has been used for a long time, so reworking
will prevent back-patching when we find bugs around "scanrelid".
We can still backpatch; it just requires more work. And how many bugs do we
actually expect to find around this anyway?
If folks think this just isn't worth fixing fine, but I find the backpatching
argument rather dubious.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
