Thread: Minor comment edits in nodeGather.c
While going through nodeGather.c, I noticed portions of the file header comment that may have been obsoleted by recent revisions of the relevant parellelism code. For example, there is a reference to PartialSeqScan node which did not make it into the tree. Attached fixes it. Also, wondering if the semantics of Gather node is that of Scan or more generic Plan? That is to ask whether the following edit makes sense: * nodeGather.c - * Support routines for scanning a plan via multiple workers. + * Support routines for getting the result from a plan via multiple + * workers. * Thanks, Amit
Attachment
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > While going through nodeGather.c, I noticed portions of the file header > comment that may have been obsoleted by recent revisions of the relevant > parellelism code. For example, there is a reference to PartialSeqScan node > which did not make it into the tree. Attached fixes it. Also, wondering if > the semantics of Gather node is that of Scan or more generic Plan? That is > to ask whether the following edit makes sense: > > * nodeGather.c > - * Support routines for scanning a plan via multiple workers. > + * Support routines for getting the result from a plan via multiple > + * workers. > * Well I think "scanning a plan" is clear enough even if it's technically a Scan. But I agree the second change is needed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Amit Langote > <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> While going through nodeGather.c, I noticed portions of the file header >> comment that may have been obsoleted by recent revisions of the relevant >> parellelism code. For example, there is a reference to PartialSeqScan node >> which did not make it into the tree. Attached fixes it. Also, wondering if >> the semantics of Gather node is that of Scan or more generic Plan? That is >> to ask whether the following edit makes sense: >> >> * nodeGather.c >> - * Support routines for scanning a plan via multiple workers. >> + * Support routines for getting the result from a plan via multiple >> + * workers. >> * > > Well I think "scanning a plan" is clear enough even if it's > technically a Scan. But I agree the second change is needed. Err, even if it's NOT technically a scan. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 2015/11/25 11:31, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Amit Langote > <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> While going through nodeGather.c, I noticed portions of the file header >> comment that may have been obsoleted by recent revisions of the relevant >> parellelism code. For example, there is a reference to PartialSeqScan node >> which did not make it into the tree. Attached fixes it. Also, wondering if >> the semantics of Gather node is that of Scan or more generic Plan? That is >> to ask whether the following edit makes sense: >> >> * nodeGather.c >> - * Support routines for scanning a plan via multiple workers. >> + * Support routines for getting the result from a plan via multiple >> + * workers. >> * > > Well I think "scanning a plan" is clear enough even if it's > technically a Scan. Okay, ripped that out in the attached. Thanks, Amit
Attachment
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2015/11/25 11:31, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Amit Langote >> <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> While going through nodeGather.c, I noticed portions of the file header >>> comment that may have been obsoleted by recent revisions of the relevant >>> parellelism code. For example, there is a reference to PartialSeqScan node >>> which did not make it into the tree. Attached fixes it. Also, wondering if >>> the semantics of Gather node is that of Scan or more generic Plan? That is >>> to ask whether the following edit makes sense: >>> >>> * nodeGather.c >>> - * Support routines for scanning a plan via multiple workers. >>> + * Support routines for getting the result from a plan via multiple >>> + * workers. >>> * >> >> Well I think "scanning a plan" is clear enough even if it's >> technically a Scan. > > Okay, ripped that out in the attached. Committed, thanks. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 2015/12/01 3:06, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Amit Langote > <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> On 2015/11/25 11:31, Robert Haas wrote: >>> >>> Well I think "scanning a plan" is clear enough even if it's >>> technically a Scan. >> >> Okay, ripped that out in the attached. > > Committed, thanks. Thanks!