Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kouhei Kaigai
Subject Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API
Date
Msg-id 9A28C8860F777E439AA12E8AEA7694F8FBFAC6@BPXM15GP.gisp.nec.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API  (Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > I haven't followed this at all, but I just skimmed over it and noticed
> > the CustomPlanMarkPos thingy; apologies if this has been discussed
> > before.  It seems a bit odd to me; why isn't it sufficient to have a
> > boolean flag in regular CustomPlan to indicate that it supports
> > mark/restore?
>
> Yeah, I thought that was pretty bogus too, but it's well down the list of
> issues that were there last time I looked at this ...
>
IIRC, CustomPlanMarkPos was suggested to keep the interface of
ExecSupportsMarkRestore() that takes plannode tag to determine
whether it support Mark/Restore.
As my original proposition did, it seems to me a flag field in
CustomPlan structure is straightforward, if we don't hesitate to
change ExecSupportsMarkRestore().

Thanks,
--
NEC OSS Promotion Center / PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kouhei Kaigai
Date:
Subject: Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT