Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm coming around to the idea that it'd be better to disable physical
> tlists for custom scans.
I've been thinking about this all along, and it seems that this is a decent
decision. However, I've made a tiny bugfix patch which allows CustomScans
to notify the core code that they can handle physical targetlists.
Extension authors won't have to change anything provided that CustomPath is
allocated using palloc0().
> However, I'm hesitant to make such a change in the back branches; if
> there's anyone using custom scans who's negatively affected, they'd be
> rightfully unhappy. Are you satisfied if we change this in HEAD?
It's kind of bittersweet. I'm really glad that you've changed your mind and
this is going to be fixed in HEAD, but this change is crucial for our
extension (if we use it with vanilla postgres).
Maybe you'll like my patch more.
--
Dmitry Ivanov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
