| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node) |
| Date: | 2014-03-04 20:52:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20140304205201.GP12995@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > Alright- so do you feel that the simple ctidscan use-case is a
> > sufficient justification and example of how this can be generally
> > useful that we should be adding these hooks to core..? I'm willing to
> > work through the patch and clean it up this weekend if we agree that
> > it's useful and unlikely to immediately be broken by expected changes..
>
> Yeah, I think it's useful. But based on Tom's concurrently-posted
> review, I think there's probably a good deal of work left here.
Yeah, it certainly looks like it.
KaiGai- will you have time to go over and address Tom's concerns..?
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-03-04 20:54:24 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-03-04 20:50:18 | Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node) |