From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Path question |
Date: | 2010-10-14 15:36:47 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimk8ThR+4BF9k0NygfJSPD+2_3e=RhiFhHhmiSb@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I rather wonder if we don't want two separate
>> execution-time node types anyway, since what Append does seems
>> significantly different from Merge (and MergeAppend would be just a
>> misnomer).
>
> I've been working on this patch, and have gotten the executor side split
> out as a new node type. That adds something like 600 lines of
> boilerplate code in various places, but I think it's well worthwhile to
> get rid of the spaghetti-code effect of retail checks to see which kind
> of Append we're dealing with. (Greg didn't catch all the places that
> needed to distinguish, anyway.)
>
> I did run into a problem with my plan to call the new node type "Merge":
> the planner is already using "MergePath" as the name for the Path struct
> that is precursor to a MergeJoin. For the moment I'm calling the new
> node type MergeAppend, but as mentioned I feel that that's a bit of a
> misnomer.
>
> The only good alternative that I can think of is to rename MergePath to
> MergeJoinPath (and then for consistency probably also HashPath to
> HashJoinPath and NestPath to NestLoopPath). While that wouldn't touch
> a huge number of files, it seems to carry some risk of breaking pending
> patches, and anyway those are names that go back to Berkeley days so
> people are used to 'em.
>
> Anybody have a strong feeling about what to call these things?
> At the moment I'm leaning to sticking with MergeAppend, but if we
> decide to rename it it'd probably be better to do so before committing.
I don't like the idea of renaming the join nodes. Both the code churn
and the possibility of confusing long-time users seem undesirable.
Let's just stick with MergeAppend.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-14 15:42:27 | Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-14 15:34:22 | Re: Path question |