Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-29 Thread Robert Haas
AM >> To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平) >> Cc: Petr Jelinek; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org >> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote: >> > I don't h

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-28 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote: > > I don't have a strong reason to keep these stuff in separate files. > > Both stuffs covers similar features and amount of code a

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-28 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > I don't have a strong reason to keep these stuff in separate files. > Both stuffs covers similar features and amount of code are enough small. > So, the attached v4 just merged custom-node.[ch] stuff into extensible. >

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-28 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Ok, I am happy with it, marked it as ready for committer (it was marked as > > committed although it wasn't committed). > &

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-24 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > Ok, I am happy with it, marked it as ready for committer (it was marked as > committed although it wasn't committed). Thanks for fixing the status. I had forgotten about this thread. I can't really endorse the naming

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-23 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 23/03/16 09:14, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: On 15/03/16 05:03, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: Petr, The attached patch is the revised one that follows the new extensible- node routine. It is almost same the previous version except for: - custom-apis.[ch] was renamed to custom-node.[ch] - check for the

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-23 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
> >> On 15/03/16 05:03, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > >>> Petr, > >>> > >>> The attached patch is the revised one that follows the new extensible- > >>> node routine. > >>> > >>> It is almost same the previous version except for: > >>> - custom-apis.[ch] was renamed to custom-node.[ch] > >>> - check for

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-23 Thread Petr Jelinek
: Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization On 15/03/16 05:03, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: Petr, The attached patch is the revised one that follows the new extensible- node routine. It is almost same the previous version except for: - custom-apis.[ch] was renamed to custom-node

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-23 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization > > On 15/03/16 05:03, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > > Petr, > > > > The attached patch is the revised one that follows the new extensible- > > node routine. > > > > It is almost same the previous versio

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-19 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 15/03/16 05:03, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: Petr, The attached patch is the revised one that follows the new extensible- node routine. It is almost same the previous version except for: - custom-apis.[ch] was renamed to custom-node.[ch] - check for the length of custom-scan-method name followed

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-14 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
ackers@postgresql.org > Subject: ##freemail## Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan > serialization/deserialization > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote: > > OK, I split the previous small patch into two tiny patches. > > The

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-14 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > > OK, I split the previous small patch into two tiny patches. > > The one is bugfix around max length of the extnodename. > > The other replaces Assert() by ereport() according to the upthread > > discussion. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > OK, I split the previous small patch into two tiny patches. > The one is bugfix around max length of the extnodename. > The other replaces Assert() by ereport() according to the upthread discussion. Committed, except

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-13 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
igai Kouhei(海外 浩平); pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > >> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization > >> > >> On 10/03/16 08:08, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> Also in RegisterCustomScanMethods > >

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-13 Thread Petr Jelinek
kers@postgresql.org >> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization >> >> On 10/03/16 08:08, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Also in RegisterCustomScanMethods >>>>>> +Assert(strlen(methods-

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-13 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
> -Original Message- > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Petr Jelinek > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 12:27 AM > To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平); pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Rew

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-10 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 10/03/16 08:08, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: >> Also in RegisterCustomScanMethods + Assert(strlen(methods->CustomName) <= CUSTOM_NAME_MAX_LEN); Shouldn't this be actually "if" with ereport() considering this is public API and extensions can pass anything there? (for that

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-09 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
> -Original Message- > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Petr Jelinek > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:01 AM > To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平); pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Rew

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-09 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 10/03/16 02:18, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > >> I am not sure I like the fact that we have this EXTNODENAME_MAX_LEN and >> now the CUSTOM_NAME_MAX_LEN with the same length and also they are both >> same lenght as NAMEDATALEN I wonder if this shouldn't be somehow >> squished to less defines. >> >

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-09 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
> On 29/02/16 13:07, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > > > > I'd like to adjust a few of custom-scan interface prior to v9.6 freeze. > > > > The major point is serialization/deserialization mechanism. > > Now, extension has to give LibraryName and SymbolName to reproduce > > same CustomScanMethods on the

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-03-09 Thread Petr Jelinek
Hi, On 29/02/16 13:07, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > > I'd like to adjust a few of custom-scan interface prior to v9.6 freeze. > > The major point is serialization/deserialization mechanism. > Now, extension has to give LibraryName and SymbolName to reproduce > same CustomScanMethods on the background

[HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

2016-02-29 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
Hello, I'd like to adjust a few of custom-scan interface prior to v9.6 freeze. The major point is serialization/deserialization mechanism. Now, extension has to give LibraryName and SymbolName to reproduce same CustomScanMethods on the background worker process side. Indeed, it is sufficient