Re: [HACKERS] Description of ForeignPath

2016-04-21 Thread Amit Langote
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >>> I think it'd be better to match the comment with that for >>> create_foreignscan_path(). So how about "ForeignPath represents a >>> potential scan of a foreign

Re: [HACKERS] Description of ForeignPath

2016-04-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> I think it'd be better to match the comment with that for >> create_foreignscan_path(). So how about "ForeignPath represents a >> potential scan of a foreign table, foreign join, or foreign upper-relation >>

Re: [HACKERS] Description of ForeignPath

2016-04-20 Thread Amit Langote
Fujita-san, On 2016/04/20 16:20, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2016/04/18 17:31, Amit Langote wrote: >> Is the following description now outdated: >> >> "ForeignPath represents a potential scan of a foreign table" >> >> Considering that there now exists FdwRoutine.GetForeignJoinPaths() whose >>

Re: [HACKERS] Description of ForeignPath

2016-04-20 Thread Etsuro Fujita
On 2016/04/18 17:31, Amit Langote wrote: Is the following description now outdated: "ForeignPath represents a potential scan of a foreign table" Considering that there now exists FdwRoutine.GetForeignJoinPaths() whose product is nothing else but a ForeignPath, should it now say (patch

[HACKERS] Description of ForeignPath

2016-04-18 Thread Amit Langote
Is the following description now outdated: "ForeignPath represents a potential scan of a foreign table" Considering that there now exists FdwRoutine.GetForeignJoinPaths() whose product is nothing else but a ForeignPath, should it now say (patch attached): "ForeignPath represents a potential