Re: [HACKERS] Minor improvement to fdwhandler.sgml

[Michael Paquier]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Etsuro Fujita
 wrote:
> Here is a small patch to do s/for/For/ to two section titles in
> fdwhandlers.sgml, for consistency.

I am grepping 54 places where "for" is used in a , and none of
them use an upper case for its first letter. I am marking this patch
as rejected.
-- 
Michael


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Minor improvement to fdwhandler.sgml

[Etsuro Fujita]

(2014/05/05 23:05), Robert Haas wrote:

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 4:10 AM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:

(2014/04/28 23:31), Robert Haas wrote:

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:


The patch attached improves docs in fdwhandler.sgml a little bit.



When you submit a patch, it's helpful to describe what the patch
actually does, rather than just saying it makes things better.  For
example, I think that this patch could be described as in
fdwhandler.sgml, mark references to scan_clauses with structfield
tags.



I thought so.  Sorry, my explanation wasn't enough.



A problem with that idea is that scan_clauses is not a field in any
struct.



I was mistaken.  I think those should be marked with literal tags. Patch
attached.


OK, committed.


Thanks!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Minor improvement to fdwhandler.sgml

[Robert Haas]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 4:10 AM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
 (2014/04/28 23:31), Robert Haas wrote:
 On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Etsuro Fujita
 fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:

 The patch attached improves docs in fdwhandler.sgml a little bit.


 When you submit a patch, it's helpful to describe what the patch
 actually does, rather than just saying it makes things better.  For
 example, I think that this patch could be described as in
 fdwhandler.sgml, mark references to scan_clauses with structfield
 tags.


 I thought so.  Sorry, my explanation wasn't enough.


 A problem with that idea is that scan_clauses is not a field in any
 struct.


 I was mistaken.  I think those should be marked with literal tags. Patch
 attached.

OK, committed.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Minor improvement to fdwhandler.sgml

[Etsuro Fujita]

(2014/04/28 23:31), Robert Haas wrote:

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:

The patch attached improves docs in fdwhandler.sgml a little bit.


When you submit a patch, it's helpful to describe what the patch
actually does, rather than just saying it makes things better.  For
example, I think that this patch could be described as in
fdwhandler.sgml, mark references to scan_clauses with structfield
tags.


I thought so.  Sorry, my explanation wasn't enough.


A problem with that idea is that scan_clauses is not a field in any struct.


I was mistaken.  I think those should be marked with literal tags. 
Patch attached.


Thanks,

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml
index 9c818cd..6b5c8b7 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml
@@ -873,11 +873,11 @@ GetForeignServerByName(const char *name, bool missing_ok);
 
 para
  In functionGetForeignPlan/, generally the passed-in target list can
- be copied into the plan node as-is.  The passed scan_clauses list
+ be copied into the plan node as-is.  The passed literalscan_clauses/ 
list
  contains the same clauses as literalbaserel-gt;baserestrictinfo/,
  but may be re-ordered for better execution efficiency.  In simple cases
  the FDW can just strip structnameRestrictInfo/ nodes from the
- scan_clauses list (using functionextract_actual_clauses/) and put
+ literalscan_clauses/ list (using functionextract_actual_clauses/) 
and put
  all the clauses into the plan node's qual list, which means that all the
  clauses will be checked by the executor at run time.  More complex FDWs
  may be able to check some of the clauses internally, in which case those
@@ -895,7 +895,7 @@ GetForeignServerByName(const char *name, bool missing_ok);
  affect the cost estimate for the path.  The path's
  structfieldfdw_private/ field would probably include a pointer to
  the identified clause's structnameRestrictInfo/ node.  Then
- functionGetForeignPlan/ would remove that clause from scan_clauses,
+ functionGetForeignPlan/ would remove that clause from 
literalscan_clauses/,
  but add the replaceablesub_expression/ to structfieldfdw_exprs/
  to ensure that it gets massaged into executable form.  It would probably
  also put control information into the plan node's

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Minor improvement to fdwhandler.sgml

[Robert Haas]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
 The patch attached improves docs in fdwhandler.sgml a little bit.

When you submit a patch, it's helpful to describe what the patch
actually does, rather than just saying it makes things better.  For
example, I think that this patch could be described as in
fdwhandler.sgml, mark references to scan_clauses with structfield
tags.

A problem with that idea is that scan_clauses is not a field in any struct.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers