> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote:
> > Do you think we shall allow to register same extensible node name for
> > different node types? Like, "GpuJoin" for any of CustomPath, CustomScan
> > and CustomScanState. Or, do we avoid this using different name for each?
>
> I'd say a different name for each. That's our current convention, and
> I don't see much reason to change it.
>
OK, it is not a serious problem, at least, for my use cases.
A convention like "GpuJoinPath", "GpuJoin" and "GpuJoinState" are sufficient.
--
NEC Business Creation Division / PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>
